Meaninglessness?

[Linsejko]

I remember reading one of the INTP profiles that was just a list of words & phrases, wherein was mentioned "likely to struggle with the meaninglessness of life".

I felt it hit spot on. I daily, consciously ask what the meaning of my life is, ask other people what their life is about, and have been in depression multiple times throughout my life based on this one little question that is oh-so-difficult to qualify...

Anyone else know what I'm talking about? I still have a hard time believing there is an entire segment of the population that will likely share my sentiments & tortures on the question; it seems ethereal.

.L

 

[Chimera]

Ah haha, that used to be question that tormented me daily. Some days it was so bad that I didn't even want to get up in the morning...a few times my mother just gave up trying to get me out of bed and let me stare at the ceiling the entire day, wrapped up in the thoughts chasing circles in my head.
And really...I don't think there's a concrete meaning to life. You have to make it meaningful. If you just go through the same routine day after day with nothing special happening, then it will probably be hard to find a meaning to it all. Some people might say that the meaning of life is to make money, but how boring would that be? You could have all the money in the world and still find life pointless.
No, I think it's something much simpler than that. To me, the meaning of my life is to be happy, as hokey as that sounds. That is always my ultimate goal. I make choices according to what I think will make me the most content in the end, and that works for me.
But if you think about all the lives out there...well, you can't just think of them as a whole. There is no "meaning of life" for humans, but there's a meaning to each individual life, and that person has to find it on their own.

Sorry for rambling a bit. I just rolled out of bed.

 

[Vrecknidj]

What makes you think life is meaningful?

I prefer to dive right into the teleology-versus-science aspect of all this. Once upon a time, Aristotle (and then later Aquinas) gave us a teleological picture of life, the universe, and everything, and nearly everyone in Western Civilization has lived by its tenets ever since.

Aristotle thought, for example, that everything has a purpose. Rain, mountains, acorns, you, me, everything. Part of what it is to be "good" at being a thing, is fulfilling that purpose. So, an acorn that becomes an oak tree might be better in some kind of way than an acorn that becomes breakfast for a squirrel. The one acorn fulfills its potential by becoming a tree, the other does not.

Aquinas picks up on this 1500 years later and converts it all to Christianity. He argues that the purposefulness of everything is tied into God's purposes for things. One could, I suppose, blend the two into an interesting psychological question "What is my purpose," write that at the top of a page, and get to work.

But, science comes along an offers a different perspective. If you ask a 6-year-old what rain in for, she just might say "To make the flowers grow!" But, if you ask the local meteorologist what rain is for, you're likely to get a very different answer. It will probably begin with something like "Well, rain isn't for anything. It's part of the cycle of evaporation and precipitation, and it just so happens that in regions where it rains frequently, flowers happen to grow..."

Two different kinds of explanations. One says that clouds rain their water down because that's what the flowers need. The other says that clouds rain their water down and, as a result, flowers happen to tend to grow there.

Both are interesting, and we still use both. If you ask someone, "What's a heart for," you're likely to get something like "To pump blood throughout the body." That's a teleological answer. Every human device follows this.

When we invent something, we have a purpose in mind first. Someone, at some point, decided that scissors were better than a knife and so developed scissors. It makes sense to ask "What are they for?" precisely because they were created for something.

But, what about natural things? What about a waterfall or a rainbow? What about the hundreds of trillions of organisms that are born, live and die, and are never noticed by a sentient being? What of all the microscopic things everywhere? We can, if we wish, create our own explanations. We can say that camouflage is for keeping an animal safe from predators. But, in fact, it's an adaptation, a consequence of its ancestors having been preyed upon. It didn't have to happen, and it isn't for anything, but it happens to really, really be useful to the creature that has it.

One of the fundamental problems plaguing people is the inability to think in terms of the right category. We impose teleological thinking onto subjects where it doesn't apply.

Now, this isn't to say that your (or my, or anyone else's) life isn't for something. Rather, it's that your life is for you. The funny thing about humans (and, perhaps, some other conscious beings as well), is that they get to decide for themselves what they're for. It's perhaps the most important feature of what makes us the kinds of creatures that we are.

So, you tell us. What is the meaning of your life? It isn't for us to tell you, and it's more for you to invent than to discover, I think.

Dave

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

The first time I thought about this, I was thinking about death. I was five years old, in my bed, and the fear hit me. The image of an old woman, lifeless but still present, came to me. Over the next few years I thought about death, and after having gone through an admittedly emo phase, I no longer feared death. I also really got into final destination, but that's not important. Anyway, douglas adams has always been a favourite of mine and after seeing the british TV double-feature entitled 'the hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy' for the umpteenth time, I started wondering on the real meaning of life. At first I thought judgment, because where I'm from you're born and raised christian. Then I thought entertainment, because I'd started to hate the idea of an egomaniac deity controlling us all. Then, with atheism, I finally settled on there is no meaning to life. But it doesn't need one. We do what we do, then we die. Nothing matters in the slightest, because in the end, we end, and nothing effects us. I started asking people, as a kind of mind-screw, "If everything was to end; life, the universe, everything, would it really make any difference? Is the universe anything at all? What is everything? What is nothing? Are they just equal opposites, the only difference being that our existing senses can percieve one and not the other?". And the answer I got was, invariably, 'you talk bullocks'.
But, I do agree with chime; we do what we do, but it seems better if we do what makes us happy. So there you are - the meaning of my life is to live it through without suffering too much or losing my mind.

 

[Wisp]

I agree with you Cabbo, but I'd also like to leave the Universe better than it was when I entered it. Leave a mark on the world, in a good way.

 

[Linsejko]

I'm honored to have evoked such a response from a philosophy professor. I'm also mildly impressed with my very basic knowledge of classical philosophy, to have been aware of Aquinas & his taking of Aristotle's philosophy.

But my question right back at you, is where did Aristotle (and then Aquinas) come to this view? One could easily say it is projection, to assume that since we create things for a purpose, we naturally postulate that this is an ultimate truth- things are made for a purpose, since we make things for a purpose.

But I think there's more to it than that- I think my intuition is not quite so simplistic. Perhaps that is arrogance & folly. Perhaps not.

But I've got a hunch.

Here's my problem, though: we run a very balanced ecosystem. We have an earth that is so well orchestrated, designed, what have you- (I can't think of a word that objectively describes it without postulating a designer at the moment, funnily enough)- that it appears to almost be a living being.

We have plants that use carbon to make oxygen, and oxygen used by nearly all other life on this planet to make carbon.

(Oxygen doesn't grow trees, by the way.)

This cyclic system, that isn't 'for' anything, very much seems to me to indicate design- to the point of being inexplicable (beyond exotic, unprovable theories begging logical holes that one can only hope will be patched by future scientific discovery) otherwise...

I'm not trying to push ID crap, (though I frustratingly realize how much this sounds like that right now, having typed this), but the systematic interactive nature of things is highly indicative of purpose, to me.

(I am not sure you can imagine how excited I am to know that I have a high chance of getting an intelligent response in this discussion from someone who is level headed, highly educated, and of an opposing viewpoint... here's to a kind exchange of ideas.)

.L

P.S.- Concerning happiness as the meaning of life, I once upon a time wrote all of my debate papers with "happiness" as the value; I later wrote a short piece explaining this as a key to human psychology.

 

[loveofreason]

I too await more of this discussion - I have returned to such questions over and over, yet am completely inadequate to solving the riddle. If it could be simply resolved it wouldn't hold our attention, would it?

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

Actually it would, because the answer requires your life to be lived through. So, your attention should be focused primarily on it.

 

[Vrecknidj]

But my question right back at you, is where did Aristotle (and then Aquinas) come to this view?

This is a much harder question to answer with any degree of assurance. It's very clearly known that Aristotle studied for years at Plato's Academy, and that this institution housed an enormous wealth of written information from the previous several hundred years. More interesting, I think, is just how far back we can push these issues. Someone, it seems, had to have first had the idea...

One could easily say it is projection, to assume that since we create things for a purpose, we naturally postulate that this is an ultimate truth- things are made for a purpose, since we make things for a purpose.

Absolutely. I think some of the folks studying the various cognitive sciences these days will tell you that the brain has, among its many talents, the tendency to put things into groups, even establishing for itself that there are groups and patterns when in fact there are not. The folks in the sociobiology and evolutionary psychology camps are probably going to argue that one of the mammalian brain's greatest functions is its ability to learn so quickly. This means that rather than waiting for the trial-and-error method of evolution, a single organism can apply that method to the immediate environment and adapt within a lifetime rather than over many lifetimes. In addition to the survival advantages, I suppose this will probably also come with some baggage, such as seeing the environment as composed of purposes and connections that might not 'really' be there.

But I think there's more to it than that- I think my intuition is not quite so simplistic. Perhaps that is arrogance & folly. Perhaps not.

Much depends upon the truth behind questions like "Is there a soul?" and "Are there really multiple levels of reality?" After all, if consciousness is merely a physical consequence of adequately complex systems, then, perhaps there isn't more. On the other hand, if consciousness demonstrates that there's more to the universe than its physical reality, perhaps there are meanings in the universe.

Here's my problem, though: we run a very balanced ecosystem. We have an earth that is so well orchestrated, designed, what have you- (I can't think of a word that objectively describes it without postulating a designer at the moment, funnily enough)- that it appears to almost be a living being.

Appearances can be deceiving. Every day it looks like the sun comes up, goes over head, and sinks. But it doesn't.

This cyclic system, that isn't 'for' anything, very much seems to me to indicate design- to the point of being inexplicable (beyond exotic, unprovable theories begging logical holes that one can only hope will be patched by future scientific discovery) otherwise...

The fact that something cannot be explained doesn't mean it's designed. (That's a fun sentence to ponder...)

I'm not trying to push ID crap, (though I frustratingly realize how much this sounds like that right now, having typed this), but the systematic interactive nature of things is highly indicative of purpose, to me.

Admittedly. So long as no one is pushing Intelligent Design as science we're good. As a metaphysical position, it's fascinating, and I think quite valuable.

(I am not sure you can imagine how excited I am to know that I have a high chance of getting an intelligent response in this discussion from someone who is level headed, highly educated, and of an opposing viewpoint... here's to a kind exchange of ideas.)

I'm more than happy to participate. We may not be so opposed though...

P.S.- Concerning happiness as the meaning of life, I once upon a time wrote all of my debate papers with "happiness" as the value; I later wrote a short piece explaining this as a key to human psychology.

I will have to take a look.

Dave

 

[Vrecknidj]

Concerning happiness as the meaning of life, I once upon a time wrote all of my debate papers with "happiness" as the value; I later wrote a short piece explaining this as a key to human psychology.

I think this deserves its own thread. But, just to get things going, I rather enjoyed your short piece.

You're right, I think, that we have to have a functioning definition of happiness in order to proceed. The noteworthy philosophers who have taken this stand have been, in the ancient world: Plato, Aristotle, and Epicurus; in the medieval world: Aquinas; and in the post-Renaissance: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and all the modern Utilitarians.

All that said, they tended to disagree on what happiness means.

Aristotle: Happiness is activity. Specifically, it is flourishing in life.
Plato: Happiness is the good life. The good life is a life spent in contemplation.
Epicurus: Happiness is the absence of suffering.
Aquinas: Happiness is perfection, exhibited through the contemplation of the divine essence.
Bentham: Happiness is pleasure (and the absence of pain).
Mill: Happiness is human welfare.

But, it's not clear that happiness is "the meaning of life" or the greatest good, or anything of the sort.

One of my favorite questions to pose to introductory ethics classes is:

"Would you rather be happy or good?"

It is, of course, a loaded question. There is this rotten implication in the wording that there is an exclusion being offered. And, of course, the question itself somewhat suggests that neither term allows the other in its definition. My purpose is to drag all this out of my students; to get them to question why I'd even ask such a terrible question.

But, it certainly is useful in punching at some of the modern notions. After all, we have a lot of parents who say things like "All I want is for my kids to be happy." But, they then load the kids up with sugar and video games, don't teach them manners, and raise them with a sense that entertainment is their birthright. Frankly, that doesn't bring too many people to happiness.

And then, parents will say to their kids "Why can't you be good?" Of course, this implies a disconnect. There is a failure to see how "being good" and "being happy" might be related.

Socrates was fond of discussing such things, and I think there's plenty of room in contemporary culture to continue the discussion.

Your notion that "happiness is fulfillment" comes very close to Aristotle's conception. But, "to be fulfilled" and "to flourish" aren't quite the same (though I'd argue there's a lot of overlap).

Regarding the notion of fulfilling needs, the Buddhists take a negative approach to the same topic. Their position (if I may be so bold as to lump all the Buddhists into one camp) is that craving leads to suffering. This helps us understand the importance of separating desire from need (as you've done). They also argue that ignorance leads to suffering (fitting your notion that misunderstanding leads to dissonance).

You're sounding particularly Buddhist.

Dave

 

[Linsejko]

Meaninglessness Response II

The meaning of life becomes a tricky question when we disassociate religion, because it implies purpose. A sense of 'purpose' implies intentional creation, which cannot practically exist without a religion.

Thus, the meaning of life is loaded. Yet, why do so many people feel the need, the craving, for the answer to this question that will be so incongruent with the logical mind? Especially, why are so many of those people those very same intellectuals?

Simplification. That distills quite a bit to a base form. I should have started the conversation off with that.

--

How very interesting, to sound Buddhist in that way. I wasn't consciously aware of Buddhism's tenets, and as far as I know, those ideas were as original as any other. I spent hours thinking on them before I wrote that paper, discussed psychology with my mom & modern psych theory, which I found to be largely trash. (I was going to say meditating, but that almost sounds like a pun I couldn't bring myself to make.) For clarification, she was talking about he method of psychology that claims the psych should find out what goals that person wants to accomplish, and then help them accomplish that.

Understandable, modern psych teaching can't make a statement on what people 'should' want- that'd be far more presumptuous than is societally acceptable these days. But that weakness is fatal to the practice, I think.

"Craving leads to suffering". According to the view I set, Buddhists are *just* off. Disharmonious craving leads to suffering. One finds happiness when one desires/craves what one needs.

I would like to have a conversation with a practicing Buddhist in the near future. At least, I'd like to show them that piece I wrote.

I think flourishing & being fulfilled are separable- I would say the desire to 'flourish', to expand one's... one's....

...well, perhaps to increase in quality the desires that can be fulfilled, and then fulfill those new desires? Is that what is meant by 'to flourish'? If so, then I say one is beginning to want what one does not need, and is creating dissonance, which will ultimately bring unhappiness.

Basically, the essence of that writing seems to be that the happiest man in the world is a simple man, who wants nothing beyond love, food, & shelter.

Perhaps.

I guess one can start to debate what the needs of a man are, and I honestly feel overwhelmed at trying to do that. Several more hours of thinking are needed.

The fact that something cannot be explained doesn't mean it's designed. --vreck

Yes, but- the fact that something seems unexplainable by natural means, and not out of ignorance, but out of insynthesizable (is that a word? It should be) data; that begs something we are missing.

I'm not talking data that doesn't make sense, by the way- like, evolution needing to defy the second law of thermodynamics to organize itself to a higher level of being, repeatedly, yet randomly, or something- I'm talking about balanced ecosystems that can't logically come into balance on their own, no matter the numbers and theories we can even imagine punching into the equation.

[As a side note, has anyone else wondered why humans perceive the world as beautiful? Even, that we perceive beauty? Not even just as sexual attraction, but completely non-sexual beauty. We are capable of finding things beautiful. I've always found that interesting.]

Whether creator or unknown science, we can't be sure, agreed. But the world sure does look designed to me.

Here's my problem, though: we run a very balanced ecosystem. We have an earth that is so well orchestrated, designed, what have you- (I can't think of a word that objectively describes it without postulating a designer at the moment, funnily enough)- that it appears to almost be a living being.
Appearances can be deceiving. --me

Every day it looks like the sun comes up, goes over head, and sinks. But it doesn't. --Vreck

I feel like this misses the point I am making. This would be a valid response if I was asserting that the earth were alive. I am not.

Rather, my point is to express the magnitude of the appearance of the design element, being so great in balance and interoperability as to appear to function together as one system- reminiscent, by the way, of the human body's systematic complex systems, operating together as one. Two many independent elements operating in symphony for it to have all just come together on its own.

Actually it would, because the answer requires your life to be lived through. So, your attention should be focused primarily on it. --Cabbo

Not necessarily. If one discovers that the point of life is to not think about the point of life....

...that's not a good example.

Man, I just lost the game.

So, if it were easily logically deducible that there is no point to life, we should just do whatever we want, then we wouldn't really care much about the question, and 'living it through' would not look any different than life without that question existing at all.

"Would you rather be happy or good?"

It is, of course, a loaded question. There is this rotten implication in the wording that there is an exclusion being offered. And, of course, the question itself somewhat suggests that neither term allows the other in its definition. My purpose is to drag all this out of my students; to get them to question why I'd even ask such a terrible question. --Vreck

My immediate thought was, 'I'd choose to become happy by being good. (you Socratic bully. I choose C!)'.

That question is very Socratic, implying mutual exclusivity, and foreknowing that neither answer is correct. Devilish.

I wonder how much fun it would be to postulate & argue that Socrates was the devil. That could get entertaining.

Socrates was fond of discussing such things, and I think there's plenty of room in contemporary culture to continue the discussion. --Vreck

There is certainly room in this forum. Sadly, I think the parents you mentioned might just get offended & walk away, the lot of them. People really don't like to be told how to raise their kids, it seems.

I'm more than happy to participate. We may not be so opposed though... --Vreck

And if not opposed, than happily a devil's advocate.

The pleasure is mine.

.L

 

[EditorOne]

"But, "to be fulfilled" and "to flourish" aren't quite the same (though I'd argue there's a lot of overlap)."

Those of us with particularly well developed and somewhat relentless animosity toward authority may very well be fulfilled even when our contrarian ways bring us up against authority in ways that work against "flourishing" in social or material terms.

A long time ago one of my managing editors called me a 'rebel without a clue.' :-)

 

[Vrecknidj]

Re: Meaninglessness Response II

"Craving leads to suffering". According to the view I set, Buddhists are *just* off. Disharmonious craving leads to suffering. One finds happiness when one desires/craves what one needs.

I agree with you here. I think the admittedly oversimplified account I gave of Buddhism here gets this a bit wrong. However, it does require me to go back and take a serious look at craving again, just to check.

I would like to have a conversation with a practicing Buddhist in the near future. At least, I'd like to show them that piece I wrote.

In the interim, let me recommend the books by Thich Nhat Hanh, his book Being Peace is a good place to start.

Basically, the essence of that writing seems to be that the happiest man in the world is a simple man, who wants nothing beyond love, food, & shelter.

Is he happy having those wants, or having them fulfilled? By the way, completely on the other side of this is Schopenhauer who suggests that the best thing that could have happened to any person is that the person not be born (but who is so lucky as that?), and that life consists in little more than the misery associated with the fact that every satisfied desire just comes back again later...

[As a side note, has anyone else wondered why humans perceive the world as beautiful? Even, that we perceive beauty? Not even just as sexual attraction, but completely non-sexual beauty. We are capable of finding things beautiful. I've always found that interesting.]

This is the subject of aesthetics in philosophy, a notably challenging field of study.

Whether creator or unknown science, we can't be sure, agreed. But the world sure does look designed to me.

I agree, it does appear to be designed.

Two many independent elements operating in symphony for it to have all just come together on its own.

Maybe, maybe not. Given 13.75 billion years (give or take), it's entirely possible that this is one consequence that an indescribably many number of chance events would produce. I admit it sounds pretty far-fetched, but...

So, if it were easily logically deducible that there is no point to life, we should just do whatever we want, then we wouldn't really care much about the question, and 'living it through' would not look any different than life without that question existing at all.

Here's where things get goofy. Once upon a time (mid 20th century, mostly), a bunch of atomistic, materialistic, scientifically-minded folks were working on how to reduce moral theories to something else. The idea being that all of psychology fell under biology (and then, perhaps chemistry, and then, perhaps physics). Quite a few folks were of the impression that all of ethics, too, was, in effect, just noise. But, there have always been these irritations. One of them is that it's very hard to make sense of "intention" in purely physical terms. (Though it's a fun game to spend the day saying "My brain" instead of "I.") And, trying to tease "ought from is" turns out to be close to impossible. Deducing what a person should do from what she can do is rather complicated. All expressions of what a person should do come from some value set or other, and not from any purely physical description. Presently, the best hope for the reductionists falls within evolutionary psychology. There is a very clever argument, for instance, than ethics ultimately comes from lactation. (Really.)

There is certainly room in this forum. Sadly, I think the parents you mentioned might just get offended & walk away, the lot of them. People really don't like to be told how to raise their kids, it seems.

Indeed. And there we go back to genetics again. Here's a funny bit of complication. The average couple seeking help for infertility spends about $100,000 on four courses of treatment, and of those, only 25% of the women end up with a baby. So, why are people so attached to having children with their own genetic information that they'll take that kind of gamble? The vast majority of people who have fertility problems never end up with ("their own") children through current technologies. You'd think that if people were really convinced that souls (as it were) had nothing to do with bodies or genes that they'd have no problem using other means of having children. But, in fact, most of the people most committed to strong family lines (i.e. "blood relations") have their own, usually quite strong religious and/or spiritual beliefs. All of which smacks of the sinister machinations of the gene. After all, if there were a "Catholic gene" or a "Muslim gene" it would be a quite successful one, no?

Dave

 

[ghost]

I remember reading one of the INTP profiles that was just a list of words & phrases, wherein was mentioned "likely to struggle with the meaninglessness of life".

I felt it hit spot on. I daily, consciously ask what the meaning of my life is, ask other people what their life is about, and have been in depression multiple times throughout my life based on this one little question that is oh-so-difficult to qualify...

Anyone else know what I'm talking about? I still have a hard time believing there is an entire segment of the population that will likely share my sentiments & tortures on the question; it seems ethereal.

.L

A couple of years ago I had myself in a good situation: I'd convinced myself that the meaning for life was to eat good food, move to Japan, stand on a crowded train, listen to the sound of cicadas in summer, curl up inside with a book when it's raining then die in the year 2050 during the Great Tokyo Earthquake.

But I've found myself becoming more serious lately - haven't been exercising enough, or doing much of anything, and have way too much time on my hands to think about serious business.

When I was younger I heard the phrases about money being useless when you're dead. I understood the concept, but it was like the idea was being uttered in an early 90s comedy. It didn't really hit me. Now it's become so real - the thought of death has hit me with like a heart-wrenching drama with complete orchestral score. I can see my own death in vivid detail, and I have all the surreal sensations of drawing my last breath before nothingness.

And everything seems so meaningless - the pursuit of wealth, "success" when in fact every one on this planet is slowly dying cell by cell.

But in spite all of that, I love life so much. I can just sit in wonder that we have evolved from a single cell organism to something that actually knows it's alive. And every weird and amazing creature on this planet comes from a common ancestor. And the fact that I have been granted the opportunity to possess one of these conscious minds - I can control these hands and do whatever I like. This absolutely amazes me. And to think this is just one planet amongst millions of galaxies....

Right now in my life I draw meaning from the pursuit of knowledge. Especially in science. I never got the "What is the meaning of life?" question as a kid. Why did anyone think it was such a great mystery? It can be anything you want it to be.

But what I really want to know how far we can go. I want to know if we can maintain our environment long enough to inhabit other planets. If we can advance to a point where we can extend our lives dramatically, or build machines smarter than us.

I guess everyone wants to be saved. Most Christians believe Jesus will return in their lifetime. And just the same, I guess I'm holding on to the slim chance to see if medicine, nanotechnology, ET visitation or anything else can keep death at bay a little longer. Even just to see something amazing - a major cosmic event, or birth of a new major new physics would completely satisfy me.

And even though it probably won't be possible for me to stick around longer than any other human individual, I see all of us as one organism. As long as someone keeps surviving, learning and striving for advancement of our species, then I'm happy to play my part and contribute as much as I can towards the evolution of our species.

 

[Radioactive_Springtime]

I think it's all just a pleasant coincidence (the last couple years I would have said accident) that we are here at all. And I think as a teacher told my friend; people look into it too far. Though it may be impossible for an INTP to let something like that go.

 

[Olba]

Meaninglessness, a funny thing at everything that it does.

I've concluded to myself that the question of the meaning of life is a pointless waste of time, specially since one or more of the obvious conclusions might be directly against my current existence.

For one, the most superficial answers to the question would be "to live a successful life". From there, we end up with the dilemma of what exactly is success. Does it equal to a good paycheck? Lots of money? A big house? A good, stable position in an organization? Publicity? Quite frankly, to myself, none of these mean anything. Whether my life is a success or not does not matter to me. If it did, I would be an extremely suicidal person, since I would have to be ready to take my own life at the very instant I realize that the successfulness of my life isn't stable. After all, if success defines a good life, lack of it defines a bad life, right? And whoever would want to live a bad life?

Then there's obviously some of the more philosophical responses, some of which are actually quite interesting. For example, the meaning of life is to achieve happiness. Quite a nice definition, I would say. After all, happiness is a good thing. However, if the meaning of life is to achieve happiness, where do we put the border? At which point do the means we use to achieve happiness start affecting us in such a way that we can no more achieve happiness? I asked this from my philosphy teacher and her answer was something along the lines of "bad acts don't result in true happiness". Kinda strange, don't you think? After all, it's been proven that people who have very little if any attachment to the feelings of others do exist. Those people don't have the same necessity of analyzing the goodness or badness of their actions, therefore they should be able to reach happiness with bad acts.

One of the most ridiculous responses, heard from the most religious people, are ones that center around a higher existence, mainly some kind of a god. For example, the Christianity is ironic at best. The one and only son of God, Jesus, happily sacrificed himself in order for the rest of us to live a sinless life. Yet, we were, for several hundreds of years, forced to atone for our sins by means of sacrifices to God in form of animals or money. Also, the fact that sacred artifacts could give you forgiveness from the Hellfire is anything but a sane thought. Also, I've never believed in the possibility that there could be a person of utter selflessness. That is, a person who is willing to do anything for the sakes of others. A perfectly altruistic person, if you will. Therefore, Jesus sounds like a joke to me rather than the greatest person to ever walk on the soil of Earth.

Then there are all of the rather boring scientific explanations. For example, from a semi-biological point, there is no meaning to your life, other than maintaining the circle of life. Makes sense, but it's also an extremely depressing thought. I mean, who would want to think that the only meaning their life has is that of turning into food for animals to eat? I would rather not have my muscles shredded and canned and then served to someone. How about you?

One of the most recent thoughts I had about the meaning of life was love. Ironic as it sounds, it makes sense. If you think about it, why were we created by our parents? They loved each other, therefore they made us. That makes us into a physical manifestation of the love my parents had for each other. Well, my parents divorced when I was 9-years-old, so this kind of a thought pattern sounds more like a joke than anything. However, it is the original meaning of why we came to existence. So, in a way, we are a physical reminder of love to our parents. If others look at us and think the same way, every single human turns out into a manifestation of love. Therefore, all life itself is a manifestation of past love. Kinda funny, don't you think? Specially when you consider all the anger and hate in the modern human society.

In the end, I think "meaning of life" comes down to two categories. The first one would be "Why were we born in the first place?" This is answered by the love theory. The second one would be "Is there a purpose for us to keep on existing?" This can be answered by all of the theories and examples I presentend here. So, if you look at it, there are only a few theories that are capable of answering both of the questions, therefore they are more of a correct answer than the others.

The problems arise when the person thinking is like me. That said, I'm extremely selfish and love my own life. In my opinion norms, ethics and morals are below life itself. After all, if there is no life, there won't be morals, ethics or norms. Also, living only for a way of thinking is quite an insane thought, specially since most people won't think about morals until they're well into their lives. Since life is above everything else, this directly results in me being able to ditch everything else as long as my life is kept. However, I don't care that much about the lives of others. With this kind of way of thinking, it makes my own existence seem quite meaningless, since the whole "love of my parents" theory doesn't sound that good. I mean, if I was only created as a sign of love, not to be what I am now, it makes my existence now seem worthless. Like it didn't matter who I am, as long as I am. Also, since time is an indefinite thing, future is also uncertain. Therefore, my whole existence uncertain. With that, there is very little meaning to my actual life. Meaning I spend most of my time in a state of meaninglessness. Damn, that sounds stupid.

 

[Ermine]

One of the most ridiculous responses, heard from the most religious people, are ones that center around a higher existence, mainly some kind of a god. For example, the Christianity is ironic at best. The one and only son of God, Jesus, happily sacrificed himself in order for the rest of us to live a sinless life. Yet, we were, for several hundreds of years, forced to atone for our sins by means of sacrifices to God in form of animals or money. Also, the fact that sacred artifacts could give you forgiveness from the Hellfire is anything but a sane thought. Also, I've never believed in the possibility that there could be a person of utter selflessness. That is, a person who is willing to do anything for the sakes of others. A perfectly altruistic person, if you will. Therefore, Jesus sounds like a joke to me rather than the greatest person to ever walk on the soil of Earth

I think you're mistaken as to the purpose of sacrifices. They were not a way of atoning for sins. That would be impossible for mortals to do on their own. It was a test of faith, and a reminder of the ultimate sacrifice to come: Jesus.

There are several other error in there too, but I won't elaborate on them here. While many aspects of Christianity are hypocritical, like the hierarchy, and the political influence it has/had, the irony you are bringing up is largely due to your own errors/lack of insight.

 

[Olba]

I think you're mistaken as to the purpose of sacrifices. They were not a way of atoning for sins. That would be impossible for mortals to do on their own. It was a test of faith, and a reminder of the ultimate sacrifice to come: Jesus.

How exactly can it not sound ironic and ridiculous that people had to give money or do good deeds to cut down their time in purgatory, if Jesus had already atoned for all of their sins? After all, the more sinful of a person you were, the more time you spend in purgatory. Exactly what part of that doesn't ring a bell as being quite contradictory? Or even ridiculous? Why the heck should we spend time and money to cut down the time we spend in purgatory, if it is already supposed to be none? Why the heck should we atone for our sins if Jesus already did that for us?

And it's common knowledge that those individuals who were a bit higher in the hierarchy of the Christian world at the time were hoarding sacred items, such as toes and nails of saints. These items were supposed to cut down on your time in purgatory.

For example, taken from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"211. How can we help the souls being purified in purgatory? Because of the communion of saints, the faithful who are still pilgrims on earth are able to help the souls in purgatory by offering prayers in suffrage for them, especially the Eucharistic sacrifice. They also help them by almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance."

It looks quite a lot like sacrificing or committing good deeds to cut down your time in purgatory to me. Or am I really misreading it so horribly?

 

[Linsejko]

How exactly can it not sound ironic and ridiculous that people had to give money or do good deeds to cut down their time in purgatory, if Jesus had already atoned for all of their sins? After all, the more sinful of a person you were, the more time you spend in purgatory. Exactly what part of that doesn't ring a bell as being quite contradictory? Or even ridiculous? Why the heck should we spend time and money to cut down the time we spend in purgatory, if it is already supposed to be none? Why the heck should we atone for our sins if Jesus already did that for us?

And it's common knowledge that those individuals who were a bit higher in the hierarchy of the Christian world at the time were hoarding sacred items, such as toes and nails of saints. These items were supposed to cut down on your time in purgatory.

These same questions are directed by Protestants and others at Catholics; it's true, it makes no sense.

Those actions aren't supported by the bible, however. Nowhere does it mention purgatory (which does not make sense because it suggests we are not made sinless by Jesus' sacrifice, which creates all kinds of problems), no where does it support artifacts of "the saints" (a term used in the bible to describe all Christians, not some 'special class' of Christian- the bible had no kind of 'hierarchy' at all, actually, and specifically argues against there being one) as being useful for anything (see first parenthetical statement).

The entire idea is fairly appalling to me. The idea of holy artifacts can clearly be seen as coming from other pagan religions during the meshing of Christianity with the the common religions of Rome around the 4th century or so... a lot of the inconsistencies in Christianity that are commonly noted (especially issues with Catholicism) can be traced to this.

(I consider Protestants slightly off in a few areas, I consider Catholicism to be a kind of cult.)

"The meaning of life is to lead a successful life" is only superficial if your definition of "success" is superficial. As it stands, that definition, (with a connotation free "success" being used), is quite neutral.

A life lived in pursuit of happiness is generally a selfish life, though I might argue this is because of a flawed perception of happiness and how it is attained (as per the article linked above in my second post). This generally leads to a rather unfulfilling life, from what I hear.

If a perfectly selfless person sounds like an impossibility to you, I would imagine Jesus sounds more like an impossibility to you than a joke. Why you feel the need to become sarcastic in your dismissal of such an idea is the question lurking in my mind, but I doubt I'll get the answer.

Why anyone goes out of their way to spend time sarcastically discrediting a seemingly ludicrous belief is only able to be comprehended by assuming they are somewhat jaded; why these people do not see how shallow their own attacks are, I do not understand. :?

The scientific point of view does not sound satisfying at all, true. On one side, some point to this built in desire for a meaningful life as evidence of being created with a meaning in mind. Of course, it is just argued back that this desire can be explained somehow by evolution, that those with that desire probably flourished while others who led meaningless lives perished. I don't find that rebuttal satisfying, but I suppose I am but one man.

While your thoughts on the meaning of life revolving around us being a symbol of our parent's love is poetic (and kind of pleasant), it doesn't really hold water... what we were born as isn't really reliably a source for us to find the meaning of our life- e.g., "why we were born" doesn't affect "why/how should we live".

(I do not really disagree with the results, though the method seems patchy.)

living only for a way of thinking is quite an insane thought, specially since most people won't think about morals until they're well into their lives.

I was thinking about morality & purpose from a very young age... I went from Christian to agnostic at 11 after months of deliberation, and the thought never left my mind.

To live for an Ideal is the highest form of existence, don't you think? A lot of people seem to think this, seem to feel this, even though there doesn't seem to be a real logic behind it. Perhaps logic here fails us, for I am inclined to agree with them...

.L

 

[Ermine]

How exactly can it not sound ironic and ridiculous that people had to give money or do good deeds to cut down their time in purgatory, if Jesus had already atoned for all of their sins? After all, the more sinful of a person you were, the more time you spend in purgatory. Exactly what part of that doesn't ring a bell as being quite contradictory? Or even ridiculous? Why the heck should we spend time and money to cut down the time we spend in purgatory, if it is already supposed to be none? Why the heck should we atone for our sins if Jesus already did that for us?

And it's common knowledge that those individuals who were a bit higher in the hierarchy of the Christian world at the time were hoarding sacred items, such as toes and nails of saints. These items were supposed to cut down on your time in purgatory.

For example, taken from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"211. How can we help the souls being purified in purgatory? Because of the communion of saints, the faithful who are still pilgrims on earth are able to help the souls in purgatory by offering prayers in suffrage for them, especially the Eucharistic sacrifice. They also help them by almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance."

It looks quite a lot like sacrificing or committing good deeds to cut down your time in purgatory to me. Or am I really misreading it so horribly?

OK, looks like we're talking about different eras of sacrificing. I was talking Biblical sacrificing, animals and such. But yeah, I find the Catholic Church ridiculous too.

 

[Olba]

"The meaning of life is to lead a successful life" is only superficial if your definition of "success" is superficial. As it stands, that definition, (with a connotation free "success" being used), is quite neutral.

The problem with the way "successful life" sounds has roots in the fact that "success" is usually seen as something materialistic or something totally pointless. For example, someone could say that they've been successful if they achieved a high position the hierarchy of a government, for example. Or someone could say that their life has been successful if they have lots of money.

However yes, success itself is a positive word. After all, to not success is the same as to fail, which usually is seen as either bad, negative or simply weak.

A life lived in pursuit of happiness is generally a selfish life, though I might argue this is because of a flawed perception of happiness and how it is attained (as per the article linked above in my second post). This generally leads to a rather unfulfilling life, from what I hear.

Was it Aristotle or Socrates who proposed that the final goal of one's life is happiness?

If a perfectly selfless person sounds like an impossibility to you, I would imagine Jesus sounds more like an impossibility to you than a joke. Why you feel the need to become sarcastic in your dismissal of such an idea is the question lurking in my mind, but I doubt I'll get the answer.

Jesus, as the son of God, does sound impossible to me. But that's only because I think God itself sounds impossible. And so does an infinite God having a mortal son. And why did it have to be a son anyways? Why not a daughter?

Jesus, as an ethical teacher, sounds more like the truth to me. After all, most of his words were quite idealistic and, for the time, revolutionary.

Jesus, as a selfless person who gave everything and asked for nothing in return does sound like an impossibility to me.

Why anyone goes out of their way to spend time sarcastically discrediting a seemingly ludicrous belief is only able to be comprehended by assuming they are somewhat jaded; why these people do not see how shallow their own attacks are, I do not understand. :?

Ah, rhetorical questions. Everyone loves them, right?

While your thoughts on the meaning of life revolving around us being a symbol of our parent's love is poetic (and kind of pleasant), it doesn't really hold water... what we were born as isn't really reliably a source for us to find the meaning of our life- e.g., "why we were born" doesn't affect "why/how should we live".

Hmm. You remind me of some guy I heard about in the philosophy class. Could've been Kant or Locke, not sure. Anyways, their pattern of thought was along the lines of "You cannot derive "ought" from "is"."

Also, what you say makes for a little bit of a strange thing. You're saying that the reason "why we were born" does not affect "why should we live"? Excuse me? So basically, you're saying that there is no correlation whatsoever between the reason of our birth and the reason of our life? Excuse me, but I don't think it's just me here who thinks that our birth is the start of our life, therefore there has to be a correlation. Without out birth, there won't be our life, either. Therefore, our birth will always have a meaning of some kind. If nothing else, then to give us the life. After all, if you disagree with that, you're pretty much saying that our birth does not equal to us getting a life. Well, maybe it can be true, depending on where you think that life starts. Autonomy in life would probably be a better term to use, aye?

(I do not really disagree with the results, though the method seems patchy.)

But of course it would seem patchy. It's a theory I figured on my own. I didn't get anyone else's input to it. Therefore, it is restricted by the same restrictions that affect me.

I was thinking about morality & purpose from a very young age... I went from Christian to agnostic at 11 after months of deliberation, and the thought never left my mind.

In my life, I cannot really name a time when I started wondering about the existence of God. Let's just say that I don't remember ever considering him real on the same level as Easter Bunny or Santa. But I didn't bother thinking why it wasn't on the same level. I just somehow knew that the existence of God is fishier than that of Santa or Easter Bunny.

To live for an Ideal is the highest form of existence, don't you think? A lot of people seem to think this, seem to feel this, even though there doesn't seem to be a real logic behind it. Perhaps logic here fails us, for I am inclined to agree with them...

I'm afraid I have no choice but to disagree here.

Actually, I thought about the relation of ideals and life. I compared them. The results were somewhat like the following.

1. Is there an order of importance for things in life?
1.a If there is no order, that results in an endless dilemma. Therefore there has to be an order of importance.
2. Is Ideal above Life in the order or importance?
2.a If Ideal is above Life in the order of importance, the person will be ready to sacrifice their life for an ideal. This doesn't make any rational sense, since your ideals won't give you a life, nor will they guard your life.
2.b Therefore, Life is above Ideal, rationally. This results in every single person being selfish. After all, if Ideal is below Life, you would be ready to do any of the following: a) sacrifice your friend or member of family in order to save yourself b) ditch any ideal if it could save your life. A) results in the undoing of altruism, therefore you're left with egoism only. Which means you're selfish. B) results in the undoing of values such as "life itself" and are all surpassed by "my life".

As you can see, rationally speaking, I've just come to the conclusion that you cannot possibly live your life for an ideal, a norm or moral. Since you don't, and since there is an order of priority, in order to save your life, you should be ready to ditch everything else. That includes social contacts such as friends, co-workers and family, beliefs such as religion and morals. Therefore, you would be extremely selfish.

However, as shown by the extreme examples, one is only forced to act selfish in matters concerning one's own life. This creates a dilemma of whether one is selfish or not. After all, you value one thing that belongs only to you over everything else. That is selfish. However, you will only do so if this one thing is threatened by one of the non-selfish priorities. So, am I selfish if I value my own existence over that of everyone else, but if I only show it and act based off that thought when my own existence is threatened?

Tell me, does any of that make sense?