The Meaning of Life is "To Love."

[Milo]

The meaning of life is not love!! It is to enjoy as much as possible. Love is just the most efficient way to go about enjoying life if you can get it. Otherwise whatever works for you is good. It seems like most of you are looking at the argument in a different way.

@BigApplePie

All of our experiences are made by the interaction of chemicals. That is why I choose to talk in terms of them.

@snafupants

You are way off topic. This thread is about what you should logically do in order to meet the logical criteria I have proven in the original post. You are taking about why we are here while I am talking about what we should do when we are here. I already know why we are here, you don't have to explain that to me.

 

[Milo]

From my perspective, there's no point in doing anything and living for myself in utter hedonism is just depressing. Having a person or other cause that motivates me and gives my actions / life both an external purpose & internal meaning is one of the few ways I can even feel that life is worth living. I can't speak for everyone but I have no problem accepting "to love" as a personal meaning of my life.

In the context I assume you are seeing this through, yes, hedonism does seem depressing, but I am using hedonism to explain that loving and taking care of the people you love is a form of pleasure. It's just a different way of looking at it. The way you see my argument is crucial in understanding it. I'm not sure how to explain it in a more defined way though.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Milo.

All of our experiences are made by the interaction of chemicals. That is why I choose to talk in terms of them.

If you meant to say our experiences are promoted by chemicals, while that is true, it can be misleading. It's like saying the cause of falling off a cliff is standing on the edge of it with the next thing known one is falling or the cause of death is my abrupt cessation of motion as my car slams into a pole at 60 mph.

BTW after much and strain and struggle I was able to stump you on your other thread. Ten days and you are unable to answer a specific Q, lol.

 

[SenteredSpace]

We are a species who decided to sleep. We dreamed of becoming gods instead of being victims of mother earth. We built civilization to reach a divine order. We will wake up and realize being victim is the same as being god. We are to Connect with our own species and all species of earth, Through love, not fear. As cells of mother earths body we will awaken her to the rest of the universe. Then we will learn to use this power, like we are with our individual power. This life is a voluntary learning and acting process. Soon we will learn to integrate with other god expressions like us in the universe. We will all reach heights unimaginable and leap to another color of dimension, where we will learn more and more until we hit the omega of consciousness that is god. And we will look down at ourselves and see the godliness in what we call madness in this day of our human consciousness.

Thats my 2 cents.

 

[Milo]

@Milo.
If you meant to say our experiences are promoted by chemicals, while that is true, it can be misleading. It's like saying the cause of falling off a cliff is standing on the edge of it with the next thing known one is falling or the cause of death is my abrupt cessation of motion as my car slams into a pole at 60 mph.

BTW after much and strain and struggle I was able to stump you on your other thread. Ten days and you are unable to answer a specific Q, lol.

No, I meant what I said. I guess you could bring it down to physics though, either way, chemistry and physics effects us and is us. Our experience is physical. Think of yourself as a part of the universe that is aware of itself, just particles arranged in a specific way that has the properties that make up what we call experience.

My argument is:

There is no meaning to life so logically you should just figure out a way to enjoy it as much as possible.

Enjoyment is a certain kind of experience made completely out of the physical world, so the best way to get the most of it is to figure out what physical arrangement of particles allows for one to experience the most enjoyment.

I used what I know about neural chemicals to state my assessment of the best way to go about this, and that is it. The assessment may be wrong since I have limited knowledge on that matter, but the argument still stands so far.

I just answered your question now. Ha. I read it and forgot to respond.

 

[addictedartist]

There is no meaning to life so logically create a meaning to life?

 

[BigApplePi]

My argument is:

There is no meaning to life so logically you should just figure out a way to enjoy it as much as possible.

My first step would be to define "meaning." Could that be that life has a direction to take it? I'll buy enjoyment. But how does this "enjoyment" come about?

Enjoyment is a certain kind of experience made completely out of the physical world, so the best way to get the most of it is to figure out what physical arrangement of particles allows for one to experience the most enjoyment.

I used what I know about neural chemicals to state my assessment of the best way to go about this, and that is it. The assessment may be wrong since I have limited knowledge on that matter, but the argument still stands so far.

If you are saying one should set up one's chemicals to enjoy, I'm in agreement. So what is it I wish to point out? I wish to point out that this leaves open how to do the setup. One cannot do drugs as the setup as drugs lead to misery and misery tends to ruin enjoyment.

I just answered your question now. Ha. I read it and forgot to respond.

Got it! Apparently your willingness to answer Q's is not time dependent, lol.

 

[Reluctantly]

I just want to comment my perspective on happiness compared to yours. Maybe you will have something to elucidate in response.

Green = "sounds fine for someone like me"
Red = "doesn't work at all for me"

My way of carrying out this plan would be the following

-Look at the world without judgement and accept everyone for who they are (including yourself)
-Optimize your oxytocin by loving someone for exactly who they are. That means to always stick up for them, do things with them, and get through problems together to build your relationship. Cuddling or any other form of intimate touching also boosts this chemical tremendously.
-Moderate your dopamine by not eating so much sugar (I'm on an all meat, dairy, vegitable diet) and not overdoing sex/masturbation.
-Exercise 3-4 times a week or more, but make sure you are working out to feel good and don't do it because you have to. This can either increase stress for you or decrease depending on your motive.
-Don't worry about life too much.Just take things as they are. Respect people. Don't hold grudges because you're only hurting yourself.If someone lies to you, realize that they are the ones living a hard life already and try to help them if it makes you feel better. Either way, being mad or angry or afraid are all negative emotions that only cause harm to you.Don't repress them, but just realize things for what they really are because being extremely unbiased will allow you to fully understand things which makes you realize that it is illogical to feel these things in most situations.

The reason I don't agree with the first red part is that sometimes who someone is is contradictory or in opposition to who we are, even if it is not intentional. So I can't agree with any of that. I can accept someone for who they are, but I can't or shouldn't necessarily love them.

The reason I don't agree with the second red part is that I find meaning in what the world could be like (and am a very serious person as a result); I am perfectionistic because of that and I will question myself into oblivion, while taking all the time I need to before deciding there is very little left to question. For me, I seek virtues and find meaning in them because I believe I am playing God by making them real, where there is no absolute morality, but one we can create nonetheless. It my basic existential reason for living and something that has always been the driving force behind all my questioning and anxiety of people that seek to destroy all morality simply because they find no absolute morality exists. It's not only what I consider true immorality for someone to seek that, but neither is it logical in that it would consequentially do more harm than good, destroy love, whatever that is exactly, that we all seem to appreciate on a strictly intuitive level.

The reason I don't agree with the last red part is that I believe that utilizing our emotions is important to our happiness. Growing up, I've had a hard time expressing what I feel internally to the world in an adequate manner (mental breakdowns as a result that people couldn't quite understand, but I might asperger's); because of this, I've learned to express my anger and negative energy a lot more and have found people that are both receptive to it and those who shy away from it and those who find it repulsive. The one's who are receptive to it, are responsive to my emotions and I love them greatly for it; the one's who are not receptive will ostracize me, but it's better for both of us in the long term (giving them the excuse of having a hard life negates my hardships and has always been repressive to me). Anyone that can validate my internal states and see it as a marker that I am seeking to resolve a problem, even through confrontation, or letting people be aware that I'm in need of help, I love greatly. I actually like it when people get angry at me too because I will then know exactly how they feel and I can respond with empathy to them as a result. It's when I don't know that I'm uncomfortable; it's when we're playing political games that I'm uneasy.

 

[Da Blob]

Ho Hum! why do supposedly intelligent people cling to the idiocy that an objective perspective allows one to be omniscient? Life is just chemistry... Bah Humbug! Our purpose is a chemical purpose to reproduce the chemicals of our genome.... stuff and nonsense.

Life is measured in terms of quality, not quantity. Quantification of chemicals (or any other numbers) assumed as a valid method to describe human experience/existence is a false premise. Life is more than numbers, at the very least Life occurs within a language, not an equation. Life is Poetry, not theory.

 

[Milo]

Life is measured in terms of quality, not quantity. Quantification of chemicals (or any other numbers) assumed as a valid method to describe human experience/existence is a false premise. Life is more than numbers, at the very least Life occurs within a language, not an equation. Life is Poetry, not theory.

So I could have perfect quality and live only for 5 seconds? Would you consider that a great life? This argument argues for both quality and quantity.

Life is the interaction of the components of the universe--particles in motion reacting to each other. Higgs Boson was pretty much confirmed to exist this year which is enough to convince me that this is the case.

Language was formed when humans realized they could associate sounds with objects in order to communicate them to each other. Everything in language is just a sound associated to an idea, object, phenomena, concept, etc. And all of these things come from observation of the universe.

Life is neither poetry nor theory, but it can be described in whatever way you wish. Poetry may not be the best way to communicate it though.

 

[Milo]

My first step would be to define "meaning." Could that be that life has a direction to take it? I'll buy enjoyment. But how does this "enjoyment" come about?
If you are saying one should set up one's chemicals to enjoy, I'm in agreement. So what is it I wish to point out? I wish to point out that this leaves open how to do the setup. One cannot do drugs as the setup as drugs lead to misery and misery tends to ruin enjoyment.

Got it! Apparently your willingness to answer Q's is not time dependent, lol.

When I say meaning, I mean a reason to do something. An objective to complete. So, yeah, I would say that direction catches the essence of what I mean.

 

[Milo]

I just want to comment my perspective on happiness compared to yours. Maybe you will have something to elucidate in response.

Green = "sounds fine for someone like me"
Red = "doesn't work at all for me"



The reason I don't agree with the first red part is that sometimes who someone is is contradictory or in opposition to who we are, even if it is not intentional. So I can't agree with any of that. I can accept someone for who they are, but I can't or shouldn't necessarily love them.

The reason I don't agree with the second red part is that I find meaning in what the world could be like (and am a very serious person as a result); I am perfectionistic because of that and I will question myself into oblivion, while taking all the time I need to before deciding there is very little left to question. For me, I seek virtues and find meaning in them because I believe I am playing God by making them real, where there is no absolute morality, but one we can create nonetheless. It my basic existential reason for living and something that has always been the driving force behind all my questioning and anxiety of people that seek to destroy all morality simply because they find no absolute morality exists. It's not only what I consider true immorality for someone to seek that, but neither is it logical in that it would consequentially do more harm than good, destroy love, whatever that is exactly, that we all seem to appreciate on a strictly intuitive level.

The reason I don't agree with the last red part is that I believe that utilizing our emotions is important to our happiness. Growing up, I've had a hard time expressing what I feel internally to the world in an adequate manner (mental breakdowns as a result that people couldn't quite understand, but I might asperger's); because of this, I've learned to express my anger and negative energy a lot more and have found people that are both receptive to it and those who shy away from it and those who find it repulsive. The one's who are receptive to it, are responsive to my emotions and I love them greatly for it; the one's who are not receptive will ostracize me, but it's better for both of us in the long term (giving them the excuse of having a hard life negates my hardships and has always been repressive to me). Anyone that can validate my internal states and see it as a marker that I am seeking to resolve a problem, even through confrontation, or letting people be aware that I'm in need of help, I love greatly. I actually like it when people get angry at me too because I will then know exactly how they feel and I can respond with empathy to them as a result. It's when I don't know that I'm uncomfortable; it's when we're playing political games that I'm uneasy.

I didn't say you had to love everyone. Just at least one person. You just should accept everyone else to reduce negative emotions. Are you aware of the concept that if you dislike someone, that you find fault in most of their actions? You feel like they are doing things in passive anger, or they think they are better than you all the time. It's just a perceptual correction.

Morality only exists in the eye of the beholder. The beliefs about it are not the same from person to person. I guess you could say that I am arguing a certain morality that allows you to make the best out of life, but morality is not universal. You should follow the set of rules that your mind finds comforting to reduce stress, or you could recondition yourself to a different set of moral rules to optimize the positive in your life for a better long-run result.

For your third point, I think we are already in agreement. I am just saying if you can "realize the negative emotions away" (not repress them). If those feelings don't exist, then no harm is done.

 

[Milo]

There is no meaning to life so logically create a meaning to life?

That is pretty much what this is. This argues that your meaning should be to optimize your experience of enjoyment. It is open to however you want to do that though.

 

[Da Blob]

So I could have perfect quality and live only for 5 seconds? Would you consider that a great life? This argument argues for both quality and quantity.
Yes, I have had a few instances of perfect quality, that may indeed have transformed a miserable life into a good one.

Life is the interaction of the components of the universe--particles in motion reacting to each other. Higgs Boson was pretty much confirmed to exist this year which is enough to convince me that this is the case.
Ho hum, I suppose that the concept that the whole exceeds the sum of its parts is an alien one, and not the very foundation of one's life (?) Analysis is a process of destruction, as is reductionism. They are useful tools for understanding the simple objects of the universe, but practically useless in understanding existence as a human being.

Language was formed when humans realized they could associate sounds with objects in order to communicate them to each other. Everything in language is just a sound associated to an idea, object, phenomena, concept, etc. And all of these things come from observation of the universe.
No! Language comes from the observation of subjects and figments of one's own imagination. The objective universe has no language.

Life is neither poetry nor theory, but it can be described in whatever way you wish. Poetry may not be the best way to communicate it though.

True, the best manner to live life is sharing positive experiences in whatever manners that can be possible. To commune is the root concept of the word, communicate

 

[Milo]

@Da Blob
So I could have perfect quality and live only for 5 seconds? Would you consider that a great life? This argument argues for both quality and quantity.
Yes, I have had a few instances of perfect quality, that may indeed have transformed a miserable life into a good one.
You must agree that you can only experience what is in the present moment. If you are past your 5 seconds of perfect quality, how could you still judge life as good? Life is not good after that 5 seconds. Life changes from one second to another which means you cannot judge one's entire life as good or bad. You have to break it apart into exact instances. And I will add that it is all subjective. You cannot judge my life as good or bad at exact instances unless you know everything that is happening to me at that exact moment and know how all those things work together in the creation of experience.

Life is the interaction of the components of the universe--particles in motion reacting to each other. Higgs Boson was pretty much confirmed to exist this year which is enough to convince me that this is the case.
Ho hum, I suppose that the concept that the whole exceeds the sum of its parts is an alien one, and not the very foundation of one's life (?) Analysis is a process of destruction, as is reductionism. They are useful tools for understanding the simple objects of the universe, but practically useless in understanding existence as a human being.
Everything is simple once you break it down far enough and then build it back up. That is how you develop a great sense of understanding. You should not judge analysis as destructive, it is just breaking apart pieces of data for better understanding.

Language was formed when humans realized they could associate sounds with objects in order to communicate them to each other. Everything in language is just a sound associated to an idea, object, phenomena, concept, etc. And all of these things come from observation of the universe.
No! Language comes from the observation of subjects and figments of one's own imagination. The objective universe has no language.
I think my point has been made here. Your imagination is only made of the associations you have created by experiencing the universe. You are a product of your environment. Your brain is just a data storage device that can mix ideas up and create new concepts out of them. If you think you've ever had an original thought without the help of the external environment, you are mistaken.

 

[Da Blob]

Ho Hum, one really should study a bit of cognitive development before making such grandiose claims. I sincerely hope one does not actually believe what one writes, for it is so utterly limiting and can lead one to a state of learned helplessness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

 

[Milo]

Ho Hum, one really should study a bit of cognitive development before making such grandiose claims. I sincerely hope one does not actually believe what one writes, for it is so utterly limiting and can lead one to a state of learned helplessness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

Well the truth is the truth no matter what. Do you have a claim against anything I have said?

 

[redbaron]

The meaning of life is not love!! It is to enjoy as much as possible.

I think you're confusing enjoyment with fulfilment.

It seems like most of you are looking at the argument in a different way.

Probably because you suck at phrasing your argument consistently.

 

[Milo]

I think you're confusing enjoyment with fulfilment.



Probably because you suck at phrasing your argument consistently.

When you are completely fulfilled, you have satisfied all of your desires. If you are enjoying something, it does not mean that you are fulfilling a desire. If you have no desires at all, you would be fulfilled. You can still enjoy things that do not add to your fulfillment.

Is that clear to you? Perhaps if you understand the argument, you should put it in your own phrases and I will let you know if we have the same understanding. Then you can clear it up for everyone else. I have been known to be a bad communicator of my ideas, but I have yet to find my way around it.

 

[redbaron]

Is that clear to you? Perhaps if you understand the argument, you should put it in your own phrases and I will let you know if we have the same understanding. Then you can clear it up for everyone else. I have been known to be a bad communicator of my ideas, but I have yet to find my way around it.

Going by the OP, you're saying:

- exercise regularly
- eat healthy
- don't masturbate 5 times a day
- relax
- cherish your significant other

Yeah okay, there's some crap about chemical reactions and other rubbish I don't really care about, but really this isn't anything new.

Congratulations on leading a balanced lifestyle that works for YOU. Unfortunately, what people are attempting to get across to you is that:

A. you haven't provided any sort of profound wisdom that wasn't already common knowledge
B. other people enjoy different things. Not everyone gets enjoyment out of something as insipid as: 'loving someone for who they are.' (this made me physically cringe with a mixture of pity and disgust)

Living for enjoyment - fine. But your methods of obtaining joy are not the same as everyone else's. Neither are your definitions of, 'love' and also - whether or not sadness, anger, despair etc. are actually negative emotions at all.

I certainly enjoy being in a sad or melancholy mood. It spurs creativity that I am unable to channel otherwise. Anger is a powerful emotion, and I enjoy the spontaneity and drive controlled anger can provide.

If you're unclear about where I'm going with all this, and why so many people are in disagreement with what you seem to think is the, 'ideal' way of life, it's this:

You're a pretentious 21 year old, telling other people how they should live and what is going to bring them the most enjoyment. Never mind that they might have their OWN views on life and be perfectly content with themselves and their lives because no - YOUR way is better and you're apparently happier than everyone else here is.

In any case, I really don't care if you continue deluding yourself into seeing some sort of profound knowledge in what it is you're purporting. Not that I could stop you if I wanted to, since you seem to enjoy it: and enjoyment is apparently all that you live for (seems a little sad and pathetic when I put it that way, actually).

 

[rattymat]

I figured out using the following rational that loving is the meaning to life for humans.
There is no objective meaning to life
Therefore nothing really matters
Therefore it is the most logical to get the most enjoyment out of life as possible

Okay- I agree there is no objective meaning to life. But how does that imply that 'nothing really matters.' Just because there isn't objective meaning, does not mean that there is not SUBJECTIVE meaning; which could be anything, not just love or loving.
Also, all of your examples suggest loving other people, but what about loving concepts, the Universe, creative hobbies, music, movies, or other? If you wanted to extend your argument about the meaning of life is to love based upon the meaning of life is to enjoy- then I suggest you expand your definition of 'love'. This expansion stretches your belief so thin and vague that it conveys little insight. Additionally, explaining your argument by explaining the chemical components of enjoying is hardly a great argument, for you use subjective reasoning to universally evaluate HOW to trigger those chemicals.

 

[Da Blob]

Well the truth is the truth no matter what. Do you have a claim against anything I have said?

Read Piaget's Play, Dreams and Imitation

http://www.questia.com/library/509479/play-dreams-and-imitation-in-childhood

Followed by The Construction of Reality, perhaps (?)

There is an ancient pointless debate amongst the determinists, who are determined only to deny the existence of free will, sacrificing all logic in order to do so.

This debate is ongoing, a false dichotomy, Genetics Versus Environment, is just the tired old Nature versus Nurture issue revisited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

Why do so many choose to refuse to become empowered by exercising their free will, it just seems silly to claim to be nothing but a passive target of forces beyond one's control?

 

[Etheri]

Before I go here @Da Blob : Alot of your posts contain serveral words, concepts and ideas I am not (very) familiar with. Then there's also a 'spam' of credentials and links. While it's fair to give credentials, I'm often far too lazy to read through that. It might be because english is my third language, it might be because the subjects are simply not anywhere near my area of expertise, but this makes me simply skip some of your posts all together. I read this forum for my enjoyment and while I enjoy thinking, I dislike having to decipher other peoples meaning. What i'm trying to say is, it'd be helpful in the communication between you and me (if you reply to the posts i'm about to quote) if you step down to my level and keep things simple. . Obviously none of this is meant offensively

Ho Hum! why do supposedly intelligent people cling to the idiocy that an objective perspective allows one to be omniscient? Life is just chemistry... Bah Humbug! Our purpose is a chemical purpose to reproduce the chemicals of our genome.... stuff and nonsense.

You imply the opposite by the clear tone set here. However, this claim is no more or less valid than the previous one. In my opinion, when it comes to the meaning of life, there's nothing but opinion. Why would a chemistry, purely rational idea be idiotic? Why is it stupidity done by intelligent people? Why must the sum be more than the individual terms? Your own opinions, perhaps? (Well, I guess people call your opinions idiotic too, so perhaps it's only fair)

Life is measured in terms of quality, not quantity. Quantification of chemicals (or any other numbers) assumed as a valid method to describe human experience/existence is a false premise. Life is more than numbers, at the very least Life occurs within a language, not an equation. Life is Poetry, not theory.

Numbers and maths is a language, one far less disambigious than most speaking languages. What makes you assume maths cannot be poetry? This paragraph is nothing but opinion, there's no reasoning, no argumentation... Again, I feel you want the sum to be more than the individual terms. A fair choice, but a choice non the less.

Life is neither poetry nor theory, but it can be described in whatever way you wish. Poetry may not be the best way to communicate it though.

^Options, choices, opinions. I agree.

Well the truth is the truth no matter what. Do you have a claim against anything I have said?

I don't believe in the idea of convergent and absolute truth. Tl dr, 'the truth' doesn't exist, and 'the truth is not the truth no matter what'. However, I feel that is an entirely diffrent discussion.

So I could have perfect quality and live only for 5 seconds? Would you consider that a great life? This argument argues for both quality and quantity.

Welp. Integrate your quality of life over the quantity. As long as we assume quality is never infinite and quantity is never infinite (which is fair assuming perfect is unachievable), then this integral would always converge. Giving you an total score on the 'quality of your life'. Ofcourse, measurement systems pointing out the 'quality at each moment' would have to be defined.

Did I just put 'the quality of life' into numbers? Oh boy, that better be one hell of a poetic equation.

 

[Milo]

Going by the OP, you're saying:

- exercise regularly
- eat healthy
- don't masturbate 5 times a day
- relax
- cherish your significant other

Yeah okay, there's some crap about chemical reactions and other rubbish I don't really care about, but really this isn't anything new.

Congratulations on leading a balanced lifestyle that works for YOU. Unfortunately, what people are attempting to get across to you is that:

A. you haven't provided any sort of profound wisdom that wasn't already common knowledge
B. other people enjoy different things. Not everyone gets enjoyment out of something as insipid as: 'loving someone for who they are.' (this made me physically cringe with a mixture of pity and disgust)

Living for enjoyment - fine. But your methods of obtaining joy are not the same as everyone else's. Neither are your definitions of, 'love' and also - whether or not sadness, anger, despair etc. are actually negative emotions at all.

I certainly enjoy being in a sad or melancholy mood. It spurs creativity that I am unable to channel otherwise. Anger is a powerful emotion, and I enjoy the spontaneity and drive controlled anger can provide.

If you're unclear about where I'm going with all this, and why so many people are in disagreement with what you seem to think is the, 'ideal' way of life, it's this:

You're a pretentious 21 year old, telling other people how they should live and what is going to bring them the most enjoyment. Never mind that they might have their OWN views on life and be perfectly content with themselves and their lives because no - YOUR way is better and you're apparently happier than everyone else here is.

In any case, I really don't care if you continue deluding yourself into seeing some sort of profound knowledge in what it is you're purporting. Not that I could stop you if I wanted to, since you seem to enjoy it: and enjoyment is apparently all that you live for (seems a little sad and pathetic when I put it that way, actually).

A. I am not here to impress anyone. I am just trying to find the truth myself via an online debate/discussion to help expand my own understanding. What you said is irrelevant to the argument.
B. I have already explained that that was my way of achieving as much enjoyment as possible and that other people have their own ways.
At the same time I'm trying to help people realize that when you hate something about a person, that thing sticks out more than when you just accept everything they do. It is more of a way to change the self-fulfilling prophecy into a more positive one.

I am trying to communicate a perspective that allows one to decrease one's negative emotions, not repress them. Whether or not you enjoy the emotion would be my definition of a positive emotion. If you dislike it, then it is a negative emotion since you do not want to feel it.

I am not telling people how they should live, I am just stating an argument and hoping to decide if it is sound or not and change it depending on other people's analysis of it.

Why would my age matter? You seem to have a rather biased view on this because of my age, otherwise why would you even state that? I would rather speak to those who do not judge others arguments based on unrelated facts about the person.

Lastly, I did not come here to have the argument judged with loaded words. I posted this thread to debate it. If you have no criticisms about any of the premises or the conclusion, then perhaps you should post your comments on my profile or in a thread that they correspond to.

 

[Milo]

Okay- I agree there is no objective meaning to life. But how does that imply that 'nothing really matters.' Just because there isn't objective meaning, does not mean that there is not SUBJECTIVE meaning; which could be anything, not just love or loving.
Also, all of your examples suggest loving other people, but what about loving concepts, the Universe, creative hobbies, music, movies, or other? If you wanted to extend your argument about the meaning of life is to love based upon the meaning of life is to enjoy- then I suggest you expand your definition of 'love'. This expansion stretches your belief so thin and vague that it conveys little insight. Additionally, explaining your argument by explaining the chemical components of enjoying is hardly a great argument, for you use subjective reasoning to universally evaluate HOW to trigger those chemicals.

No, my definition of love was for other people because I used the premise of Oxycontin release to come to that conclusion. The examples you have provided are dependent on how the person was conditioned (mostly), so they would also be valid suggestions depending on the person. I am arguing from the standpoint of chemicals because I could not possibly know how everyone else experiences life.

You are completely right about your second point. I believe you have pretty much taken out the part of the argument that states how to go about doing it.

The argument has now been reduced to:

There is no objective meaning of life.
Therefore, nothing really matters--meaning that there is no goal that everyone should be going out to try and achieve.
Therefore it is logical to get the most enjoyment out of life as possible (stressing the long-run)

Do you see this a sound argument? Could you make any other assumptions based on this conclusion?

 

[Milo]

Read Piaget's Play, Dreams and Imitation

http://www.questia.com/library/509479/play-dreams-and-imitation-in-childhood

Followed by The Construction of Reality, perhaps (?)

There is an ancient pointless debate amongst the determinists, who are determined only to deny the existence of free will, sacrificing all logic in order to do so.

This debate is ongoing, a false dichotomy, Genetics Versus Environment, is just the tired old Nature versus Nurture issue revisited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

Why do so many choose to refuse to become empowered by exercising their free will, it just seems silly to claim to be nothing but a passive target of forces beyond one's control?

I agree that the debate is pointless. Plus, if you think you have no free will, that becomes a part of your belief system and changes the way your brain functions. Either way, you can know what life really is yet still behave as if it were not true. I know that my belief system dictates my behavior, so I consciously change it to adapt to my environment in order to fulfill my objectives.

 

[Milo]

I don't believe in the idea of convergent and absolute truth. Tl dr, 'the truth' doesn't exist, and 'the truth is not the truth no matter what'. However, I feel that is an entirely diffrent discussion.

Well, it could be relevant actually since if there is no absolute truth, that means the truth can change depending on something else, but wouldn't you agree that it would be true that these changing things could be defined and be the basis of what is true even if I could not know it?

I would be interested in an example if you have one. Absolute truths I speak of are those that can be deduced from physical properties.

 

[redbaron]

There is no objective meaning of life.
Therefore, nothing really matters--meaning that there is no goal that everyone should be going out to try and achieve.
Therefore it is logical to get the most enjoyment out of life as possible (stressing the long-run)

Why is it logical to get the most enjoyment? You aren't providing any reasoning as to why it's logical.

You could just as easily argue that since there is no meaning, it is logical to kill yourself. This argument is supported by as much logic as your own is.

I laughed at the 'long-run' too. What long-run? Rationalizing human existence, we barely amount to the blink of an eye to the rest of the cosmos. Individual lives are even less significant.

No one can argue with your point, because it's actually not rational, it's just your personal belief. Please, do tell me again how your personal belief is logical without providing logical reasons why.

 

[snafupants]

This thread is retarded. Yeah meaning in life is inextricably attached to feeling. Low feeling: low meaning. High feeling: high meaning. This assertion isn't groundbreaking. It's fucking common sense.

 

[Milo]

Why is it logical to get the most enjoyment? You aren't providing any reasoning as to why it's logical.

You could just as easily argue that since there is no meaning, it is logical to kill yourself. This argument is supported by as much logic as your own is.

I laughed at the 'long-run' too. What long-run? Rationalizing human existence, we barely amount to the blink of an eye to the rest of the cosmos. Individual lives are even less significant.

No one can argue with your point, because it's actually not rational, it's just your personal belief. Please, do tell me again how your personal belief is logical without providing logical reasons why.

It is self-evident that what you perceive as a good feeling is intrinsically good subjectively. Same for the opposite. That is why it is important to consider the long-run because getting a good feeling now should not mean risking having a reduced amount of good feelings in the future or an increased amount of bad feelings.

There is no objective good, only the subjective. One must use his/her best judgement in deciding his/her actions for this goal, and should not worry about unnecessary things that people so often do or even worry at all. Worry is an emotional response to analyzing what could go wrong. Get rid of the emotional response and you have complete clarity. Don't try to factor in what you don't know, use only what you know when figuring things out for yourself.

I would like to hear any criticism of this as well.

 

[Milo]

This thread is retarded. Yeah meaning in life is inextricably attached to feeling. Low feeling: low meaning. High feeling: high meaning. This assertion isn't groundbreaking. It's fucking common sense.

It's the basis for which more assumptions can be made. If you don't know the simple things, how will you ever understand the complex?

If this is common sense, why don't you use the logic and go do something more enjoyable?

 

[snafupants]

It's the basis for which more assumptions can be made. If you don't know the simple things, how will you ever understand the complex?

If this is common sense, why don't you use the logic and go do something more enjoyable?

I do select enjoyable activities. Did you mean this in a different vein?

 

[redbaron]

You're just spouting more and more platitudes every time you respond now.

'There is no objective good, only the subjective.'
'If you don't know the simple things, how will you understand the complex?'
'A good feeling is intrinsically good.'

Then you follow these incredible insights with:

I would like to hear any criticism of this as well.

Criticisms of what exactly? You didn't assert anything that wasn't already self-evident. You're taking a long-winded approach to saying things that are already glaringly obvious.

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

If I could jump in for a moment...I agree that for some, the meaning of life is to love. However, for everyone to live as if enjoyment and pleasure were the ultimate goal then society would fail. A society does need those who live to love, it also needs those who lead, sacrifice, suffer, fight, learn, create, reason, ect... It's the responsibility of the individual to recognize his/her gifts, through self knowledge, in order to fill these various rolls. The act of recognition brings purpose, the act of fulfilling this purpose gives meaning.

"Man cannot stand a meaningless life" -Jung

 

[BigApplePi]

Hi redbaron. There is so much going on in this thread, I thought I'd just pick something out.

B. other people enjoy different things. Not everyone gets enjoyment out of something as insipid as: 'loving someone for who they are.' (this made me physically cringe with a mixture of pity and disgust)

I assume you are quoting something said earlier but I know what you mean. Loving everyone for whom they are might be applied to some religious idealist. For the average person, I'd say the secret is involvement. One doesn't love someone with whom they are not involved. The greater the interaction, the greater the chance for working on enhancing for what is going on.

Living for enjoyment - fine. But your methods of obtaining joy are not the same as everyone else's. Neither are your definitions of, 'love' and also - whether or not sadness, anger, despair etc. are actually negative emotions at all.

Negative emotions or just connected with something negative? One could say the emotions perform a positive function. Sadness to recognize things aren't going so well. Anger to express injustice, despair to reject a hopeless situation. These are useful emotions.

 

[Etheri]

Well, it could be relevant actually since if there is no absolute truth, that means the truth can change depending on something else, but wouldn't you agree that it would be true that these changing things could be defined and be the basis of what is true even if I could not know it?

I would be interested in an example if you have one. Absolute truths I speak of are those that can be deduced from physical properties.

Yes, and that is exactly my point. It's as if you and many other people are comparing measurements, numbers. But you're all measuring in diffrent metric systems. You can't compare meters, centimeters, miles, yards and feet without conversion. Most people are not attacking the rationality of your setup (despite it having flaws, some of which I tried to point out!). They're attacking how your idea is written in a general sense. As if holds true for everyone, 'the only way', while in fact it holds true for only those who measure by the same metric system as you do.

So @rattymat @Milo @redbaron : You're all right. You all pretty much agree, there's no meaning of life, so we give something meaning. We choose something. Milo chooses a chemistry-rational setup and tries to build that out, and you guys simply state nothing on the setup, instead you just state 'chemistry is only one of the starting points. Also, happiness is only one of the choices to optimalise.'
And this is true, chemistry is one choice, there are many other choices. But this doesn't change that to milo, his arguments hold true, due to his choices. And now that it's established that his premisses are not the only starting premisses and thus his solutions are not the only solutions which hold true, can we now continue to find the flaws in the setup itself and if his solution is actually true (to him) in the first place?

This thread is retarded. Yeah meaning in life is inextricably attached to feeling. Low feeling: low meaning. High feeling: high meaning. This assertion isn't groundbreaking. It's fucking common sense.

What's wrong with questioning and / or analysing common sense? To most people, half of the things my Pness tells me are stupid are 'common sense'. Your argument is nonsense as it bases itself upon public opinion, and we all know the public is generally stupid. While the point you formed may be true, this isn't groundbreaking, I don't think that is required in order to overthink or discuss about it. Clearly, this thread isn't retarded, it's got over a hundred replies, some more valuable than others, but the thread is clearly doing it's job nevertheless.

 

[BigApplePi]

You're all right. You all pretty much agree, there's no meaning of life, so we give something meaning. We choose something. Milo chooses a chemistry-rational setup and tries to build that out, and you guys simply state nothing on the setup, instead you just state 'chemistry is only one of the starting points. Also, happiness is only one of the choices to optimalise.'
And this is true, chemistry is one choice, there are many other choices. But this doesn't change that to milo, his arguments hold true, due to his choices. And now that it's established that his premisses are not the only starting premisses and thus his solutions are not the only solutions which hold true, can we now continue to find the flaws in the setup itself and if his solution is actually true (to him) in the first place?

Originally Posted by snafupants
This thread is retarded. Yeah meaning in life is inextricably attached to feeling. Low feeling: low meaning. High feeling: high meaning. This assertion isn't groundbreaking. It's fucking common sense.

How to phrase this? Oh yes. There is meaning to life. Plenty. It's meaning is to go about one's business. That can't be done with much satisfaction unless one cares about one's business. It may be pleasant or unpleasant or pretty low grade, but that's its meaning.* The caring means feeling and one can throw in emotion if you wish. If one doesn't care very much, one won't do much and life will lose its meaning. This meaning is a dynamic process. It keeps moving. If you slow it down to zero, what's the meaning in that? Ya gotta keep moving and on the go. Ye go fast or maybe slow. Motion is one of the six tools for understanding.

*We don't have to go all the way to life to find meaning. When you make a post, doesn't it have meaning for you?

 

[BigApplePi]

It is self-evident that what you perceive as a good feeling is intrinsically good subjectively. Same for the opposite. That is why it is important to consider the long-run because getting a good feeling now should not mean risking having a reduced amount of good feelings in the future or an increased amount of bad feelings.

Apparently there is an admix of long and short run going here. The long run in the back of our minds keeps us going and says "this is morally okay." The short run is for fun now or for expediency now.

There is no objective good, only the subjective.

I'm beginning to think that the objective is a compilation of the subjective. That is, if you pile enuf subjectivisms onto each other, you'll get something closer to the universal. For example, objective good is what is most constructive with minimum destructiveness. One might have trouble balancing that out though.

One must use his/her best judgement in deciding his/her actions for this goal, and should not worry about unnecessary things that people so often do or even worry at all. Worry is an emotional response to analyzing what could go wrong. Get rid of the emotional response and you have complete clarity. Don't try to factor in what you don't know, use only what you know when figuring things out for yourself.

Umm. I'll hold off on that one.

I would like to hear any criticism of this as well.

You got something.

 

[redbaron]

@BigApplePi

I assume you are quoting something said earlier but I know what you mean. Loving everyone for whom they are might be applied to some religious idealist. For the average person, I'd say the secret is involvement. One doesn't love someone with whom they are not involved. The greater the interaction, the greater the chance for working on enhancing for what is going on.

[MENTION]@BigApplePi[/MENTION] I'm not sure if you mean it the way I'm interpreting, but I (think) am inclined to agree.

Negative emotions or just connected with something negative? One could say the emotions perform a positive function. Sadness to recognize things aren't going so well. Anger to express injustice, despair to reject a hopeless situation. These are useful emotions.

I was viewing it the same way. That emotions can't be pigeon-holed as, 'negative' and, 'positive' - there is value in all emotion. I'm assuming this is what you mean, it's hard to follow context through all the redundant and contradictory arguments in this thread.

 

[Da Blob]

Before I go here @Da Blob : Alot of your posts contain serveral words, concepts and ideas I am not (very) familiar with. Then there's also a 'spam' of credentials and links. While it's fair to give credentials, I'm often far too lazy to read through that. It might be because english is my third language, it might be because the subjects are simply not anywhere near my area of expertise, but this makes me simply skip some of your posts all together. I read this forum for my enjoyment and while I enjoy thinking, I dislike having to decipher other peoples meaning. What i'm trying to say is, it'd be helpful in the communication between you and me (if you reply to the posts i'm about to quote) if you step down to my level and keep things simple. . Obviously none of this is meant offensively

I understand, there are a lot of antecedents to many of my comments and I can' t be aware of which ones are known to current readers. Virtually everything I have written has been in defense of my very first post, Science versus Art/Objective versus Subjective POV

You imply the opposite by the clear tone set here. However, this claim is no more or less valid than the previous one. In my opinion, when it comes to the meaning of life, there's nothing but opinion. Why would a chemistry, purely rational idea be idiotic? Why is it stupidity done by intelligent people? Why must the sum be more than the individual terms? Your own opinions, perhaps? (Well, I guess people call your opinions idiotic too, so perhaps it's only fair)

Because science is based upon numbers/quantities, but life is based upon experience/qualities. The complexity of the universe is such that no single POV is adequate to comprehend it. Cognitive development is a progression from one POV to another POV to another POV... Beyond the objective POV that has resulted in science is the POV that recognizes BOTH science and art as the basis for legitimate perspectives upon the same universe. The rationality of chemistry is balanced by the irrationality of a 'moving' artistic experience. One really can't seek the meaning of life from a monocular perspective. The issue needs to be looked at from a binocular perspective.


Numbers and maths is a language, one far less disambigious than most speaking languages. What makes you assume maths cannot be poetry? This paragraph is nothing but opinion, there's no reasoning, no argumentation... Again, I feel you want the sum to be more than the individual terms. A fair choice, but a choice non the less.

How is it a choice? A dynamic system in motion is much more than the sum of static components.

 

[redbaron]

Your argument is nonsense as it bases itself upon public opinion, and we all know the public is generally stupid.

Please tell me the irony here is intentional and you're just trying to bait a response out of snafupants.

Clearly, this thread isn't retarded, it's got over a hundred replies

I can't really be bothered detailing how and why this comment is so stupid. Only to say that it is in fact stupid.

 

[BigApplePi]

Touché on all counts.

 

[Milo]

I do select enjoyable activities. Did you mean this in a different vein?

As in not complaining about this thread.

 

[Milo]

I do select enjoyable activities. Did you mean this in a different vein?

You're just spouting more and more platitudes every time you respond now.

'There is no objective good, only the subjective.'
'If you don't know the simple things, how will you understand the complex?'
'A good feeling is intrinsically good.'

Then you follow these incredible insights with:



Criticisms of what exactly? You didn't assert anything that wasn't already self-evident. You're taking a long-winded approach to saying things that are already glaringly obvious.

The thing I hate the most is when people play stupid. Don't be one of those people. We both know that I posted another paragraph that induced another conclusion to which I asked to be criticized.

 

[Milo]

Yes, and that is exactly my point. It's as if you and many other people are comparing measurements, numbers. But you're all measuring in diffrent metric systems. You can't compare meters, centimeters, miles, yards and feet without conversion. Most people are not attacking the rationality of your setup (despite it having flaws, some of which I tried to point out!). They're attacking how your idea is written in a general sense. As if holds true for everyone, 'the only way', while in fact it holds true for only those who measure by the same metric system as you do.

So @rattymat @Milo @redbaron : You're all right. You all pretty much agree, there's no meaning of life, so we give something meaning. We choose something. Milo chooses a chemistry-rational setup and tries to build that out, and you guys simply state nothing on the setup, instead you just state 'chemistry is only one of the starting points. Also, happiness is only one of the choices to optimalise.'
And this is true, chemistry is one choice, there are many other choices. But this doesn't change that to milo, his arguments hold true, due to his choices. And now that it's established that his premisses are not the only starting premisses and thus his solutions are not the only solutions which hold true, can we now continue to find the flaws in the setup itself and if his solution is actually true (to him) in the first place?


What's wrong with questioning and / or analysing common sense? To most people, half of the things my Pness tells me are stupid are 'common sense'. Your argument is nonsense as it bases itself upon public opinion, and we all know the public is generally stupid. While the point you formed may be true, this isn't groundbreaking, I don't think that is required in order to overthink or discuss about it. Clearly, this thread isn't retarded, it's got over a hundred replies, some more valuable than others, but the thread is clearly doing it's job nevertheless.

Thank you. Sorry for not understanding your points. I really am trying to comprehend all opposing points, for my only interest is the truth. Communicating clearly seems to be my biggest flaw and I'm working on it. Lol.

 

[Milo]

How to phrase this? Oh yes. There is meaning to life. Plenty. It's meaning is to go about one's business. That can't be done with much satisfaction unless one cares about one's business. It may be pleasant or unpleasant or pretty low grade, but that's its meaning.* The caring means feeling and one can throw in emotion if you wish. If one doesn't care very much, one won't do much and life will lose its meaning. This meaning is a dynamic process. It keeps moving. If you slow it down to zero, what's the meaning in that? Ya gotta keep moving and on the go. Ye go fast or maybe slow. Motion is one of the six tools for understanding.

*We don't have to go all the way to life to find meaning. When you make a post, doesn't it have meaning for you?

True. The only problem is that, for me, I need to have a pretty good reason to do something, and if I do have that reason, it does give me meaning. My reason for posting this is so that I can figure out what it is I should be doing. I am sort of in a midlife crisis type deal. Yeah I'm only 21, but I feel like I am wasting my life if I don't figure out what it is I'd like to do with it. That is why I am trying to make assumptions based on the argument. Perhaps you might just have the answer. Maybe it is a good reason to do things for the sake of doing them. Is that what you are getting at?

Apparently there is an admix of long and short run going here. The long run in the back of our minds keeps us going and says "this is morally okay." The short run is for fun now or for expediency now.
I'm beginning to think that the objective is a compilation of the subjective. That is, if you pile enuf subjectivisms onto each other, you'll get something closer to the universal. For example, objective good is what is most constructive with minimum destructiveness.

Do you mean what is true for everyone is the objective or are you adding up all the things that are not true for everyone and making a statistical choice on the most frequent ones?

Please tell me the irony here is intentional and you're just trying to bait a response out of snafupants.



I can't really be bothered detailing how and why this comment is so stupid. Only to say that it is in fact stupid.

If it is one thing you should learn from this thread, it is that you should hold back your ego and judgements when engaging in criticism and debate.

 

[Etheri]

Spoiler

Before I go here @Da Blob : Alot of your posts contain serveral words, concepts and ideas I am not (very) familiar with. Then there's also a 'spam' of credentials and links. While it's fair to give credentials, I'm often far too lazy to read through that. It might be because english is my third language, it might be because the subjects are simply not anywhere near my area of expertise, but this makes me simply skip some of your posts all together. I read this forum for my enjoyment and while I enjoy thinking, I dislike having to decipher other peoples meaning. What i'm trying to say is, it'd be helpful in the communication between you and me (if you reply to the posts i'm about to quote) if you step down to my level and keep things simple. . Obviously none of this is meant offensively

I understand, there are a lot of antecedents to many of my comments and I can' t be aware of which ones are known to current readers. Virtually everything I have written has been in defense of my very first post, Science versus Art/Objective versus Subjective POV

You imply the opposite by the clear tone set here. However, this claim is no more or less valid than the previous one. In my opinion, when it comes to the meaning of life, there's nothing but opinion. Why would a chemistry, purely rational idea be idiotic? Why is it stupidity done by intelligent people? Why must the sum be more than the individual terms? Your own opinions, perhaps? (Well, I guess people call your opinions idiotic too, so perhaps it's only fair)

Because science is based upon numbers/quantities, but life is based upon experience/qualities. The complexity of the universe is such that no single POV is adequate to comprehend it. Cognitive development is a progression from one POV to another POV to another POV... Beyond the objective POV that has resulted in science is the POV that recognizes BOTH science and art as the basis for legitimate perspectives upon the same universe. The rationality of chemistry is balanced by the irrationality of a 'moving' artistic experience. One really can't seek the meaning of life from a monocular perspective. The issue needs to be looked at from a binocular perspective.


Numbers and maths is a language, one far less disambigious than most speaking languages. What makes you assume maths cannot be poetry? This paragraph is nothing but opinion, there's no reasoning, no argumentation... Again, I feel you want the sum to be more than the individual terms. A fair choice, but a choice non the less.

How is it a choice? A dynamic system in motion is much more than the sum of static components.

Too lazy to quote piece by piece D;. I can agree with your first two paragraphs (ignoring slight details I'd put diffrently, but that makes no matter). As for the last... While I agree that we cannot gain full understanding from one point of view, I don't think the two point of views are 'scientific / art', I disagree with the idea of binoculars... Because this would imply art and science together is capable of perception, which is a claim i cannot back up whatsoever, and thus am inclined to refuse. (Ofcourse the binoculars you're discussing could be part of something more.)
And sure, dynamic sum vs static terms... You're right! But you can always just add up the dynamic terms to get the dynamic sum . In all cases maths remains a language. While it's not the only way, nor a perfect way to express reality, it is a way. One that is much easier to share once people get used to the 'language of maths', much unlike art and experience.

Please tell me the irony here is intentional and you're just trying to bait a response out of snafupants.

The pun was intended, my argument stands regardless. Public opinion is not proof or even valid argumentation.

I can't really be bothered detailing how and why this comment is so stupid. Only to say that it is in fact stupid.

Because... We're on a forum, where we aim to discuss and chat and all the other things you want to do. While I'm not saying post count is an absolute measure to compare threads, I'm just quite sure I can say that a thread with as much discussion as this one is in fact a valuable thread. If the thread is retarded and everything postulated is obvious to begin with, why are we still arguing, a 100 posts later?

Also, I smell additional puns of you trying to bait me into a response on me trying to bait snafupants into a response. Well played, I grant you your response.

 

[redbaron]

If the thread is retarded and everything postulated is obvious to begin with, why are we still arguing, a 100 posts later?

This thread has been an argument over semantics more than anything else.

Seems to me the reason people are arguing 100 posts later is because people don't like the tone of the argument, or they don't agree with wording of a particular argument.

The discussion never really developed to a point where anyone involved gained any ideas they didn't already have.

This thread was (is) a pissing contest.

 

[Milo]

This thread has been an argument over semantics more than anything else.

Seems to me the reason people are arguing 100 posts later is because people don't like the tone of the argument, or they don't agree with wording of a particular argument.

The discussion never really developed to a point where anyone involved gained any ideas they didn't already have.

This thread was (is) a pissing contest.

Stop reading it then. Der duh der.

 

[Da Blob]

Spoiler

Too lazy to quote piece by piece D;. I can agree with your first two paragraphs (ignoring slight details I'd put diffrently, but that makes no matter). As for the last... While I agree that we cannot gain full understanding from one point of view, I don't think the two point of views are 'scientific / art', I disagree with the idea of binoculars... Because this would imply art and science together is capable of perception, which is a claim i cannot back up whatsoever, and thus am inclined to refuse. (Ofcourse the binoculars you're discussing could be part of something more.)

Humans have long recognized that the forms of knowledge of the subject and the knowledge of the object are different. There are cognitive, if not neurological, foundations for this division of the truth. In academia, as well as in the Library, knowledge has be recorded and stored as the knowledge of the Humanities and the knowledge of the Sciences. The answers to the questions "what is the meaning of Life? and "what is the meaning of Love?" have mutually exclusive, subjective and objective answers that can be drawn from either the stored knowledge of the Humanities or the Sciences. Which pair of answers is correct, those drawn from the Humanities or those from the Sciences? My suggestion is that it is not an either/or scenario, but rather a both/neither situation.

And sure, dynamic sum vs static terms... You're right! But you can always just add up the dynamic terms to get the dynamic sum . In all cases maths remains a language. While it's not the only way, nor a perfect way to express reality, it is a way. One that is much easier to share once people get used to the 'language of maths', much unlike art and experience.

No not really, In reality the whole is more than the sum of its parts. It is only in abstract, static, symbolic mental scenarios that the whole is equal to the sum its parts. A sum of parts remains just a sum of parts in real life and nothing greater such as a dynamic system. The methods of thought used in the processes of analysis are destructive and it always much easier to kill and destroy, than it is create and build.
I think that pattern has something to due with entropy and chaos (?)