The Meaning of Life is "To Love."

[Milo]

ahh hedonism my old friend,
you see the meaning of life is to love; others? Of coarse an Introverted forum, people cant understand that Milo made this thread because he loves you and gets enjoyment out of watching you squirm.
a botanist said that all plants are weeds. some of you are argueing that all a plant needs is sunlight while others are argueing that all a plant needs is water, all it needs is some good soil.then some of you are argueing that plants dont need anything because they will find a way on their own, and others are concerned there may simply be bad seeds however every flower blooms in its own good time
(I would love to go more in depth);but for now I must watch bob marley documentry with my dad , which will be to our mutual satisfaction and enjoyment, and may even amplify the love we have for one another

It is partially true that I enjoy sharing my ideas with others to help them see what I see. I also have another agenda to make sure I am right by having you all argue with me. The truth is what I want and I want everyone else to know it so they may live a better life with me.

 

[DeadonDreaming]

The 'self-entertainment' response to nihilism feels a little dubious to me. It seems too convenient for our culture. Consume. Consume. Stay happy, don't think about the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_120_Days_of_Sodom

I've felt for a while this book has a lot to say about our times. I wonder why it's been banned so often. Not a very pleasant picture of authority (or pleasure seeking - what if power makes you happy? Should you abuse others for your own happiness if enjoyment is the rule?)



So, The Duc de Blangis, The Bishop, The Président de Curval and Durcet look out for each other. Who looks out for the 46 victims?

edit: for context, the 4 characters represent the most powerful in the land, so there actions have no consequences from the law, so "I wouldn't do it because it would harm me" doesn't stand with this example.

Also, I don't know what Happiness is without the other 5 archetypal emotions: sadness, fear, disgust, anger, and surprise (note how many of these are... not happiness.) To be permanently happy would be a land of no definition, just stasis. Not sure about attempts to limit potential expression, also feels dubious.

@Puffy Holy crap that book is cray cray.

 

[snafupants]

@snafupants It serve your ends, can't we leave nature out of it? I'm sure she's happy as long as you are I'm wondering about the reason for you isolating yourself in a library, embracing asceticism, reading Donald Duck, or whatever may have you. If it's pleasure in some form (I made it purposely difficult for myself when mentioning asceticism but I think, or rather, hope, that we already have that cleared up with the "pleasures of the flesh" distinction), then the observation still stands - humans aim to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Are we in disagreement there?

@kantor1003

I agree that most humans seek to enhance pleasure and minimize harm, as I do. Over ninety percent of people would prefer feeling orgasmic over the doldrums. I, like most people, would ideally select activities that help me in some way and make me feel good as a fringe benefit, so to speak. I'm happy to lump all pleasure together. That's fine. Before I simply wanted to render a distinction between following Nature's script of positive reinforcement via sexual release, and therefore the sled to new life, and pleasure, perhaps intellectual or aesthetic in nature, that eschews these things and solely (or almost solely) benefits the individual. This was my rationale behind the library fable.

 

[Milo]

The crux of the matter is thus: where is that enjoyment derived from? Is that enjoyment at someone else's expense? Does one have a duty to aid other people? To not harm other people?

OK, if your rationale for not blowing up a church is preserving yourself then I need to reconsider this conversation.

It's not that people fail to "fully understand" your premise; it's that forum goers feel the premise is selfish and philosophically jejune.

The enjoyment is derived from the things I listed in order in my original post. It could be however way you prefer though. I just used neuroscience to explain the most efficient route. It is not my intention for my enjoyment to be at someone else's expense since my main objective is to love everyone and be as healthy as I can so I can share more love and enjoy life longer. I do not see a reason to harm people unnecessarily since that is illogical because it brings me pain to harm others. No one has any duties whatsoever. You can do whatever you want, but again, don't you want to enjoy life?

People's opinions are just that. They create an illusion for themselves that things can be inherently good or bad when really everything is neutral. They need to realize that they should not just assume anything is good or bad since that only leads to perceptual error. I only seek the truth with no bias whatsoever.

 

[snafupants]

It is partially true that I enjoy sharing my ideas with others to help them see what I see. I also have another agenda to make sure I am right by having you all argue with me. The truth is what I want and I want everyone else to know it so they may live a better life with me.

@Milo

That's a noble pursuit but perhaps you should get your own house in order first.

 

[Milo]

@Milo

That's a noble pursuit but perhaps you should get your own house in order first.

Mine is completely in order unless you can disprove it.

 

[Puffy]

Since when is loving others consuming?

They look out for themselves and the people they care about. And it's enjoyment, not happiness. When I work out, I am not happy, but I am enjoying it.

I think you missed my over-arching point (but I admit I probably wasn't clear enough). From your premise of 'enjoyment' as a life purpose, it follows that the 4 libertine's were justified in abusing and slaughtering the 46 victims if it ended in their own enjoyment.

And yes, DeadonDreaming, cray cray is one way of putting it.

 

[snafupants]

The enjoyment is derived from the things I listed in order in my original post. It could be however way you prefer though. I just used neuroscience to explain the most efficient route. It is not my intention for my enjoyment to be at someone else's expense since my main objective is to love everyone and be as healthy as I can so I can share more love and enjoy life longer. I do not see a reason to harm people unnecessarily since that is illogical because it brings me pain to harm others. No one has any duties whatsoever. You can do whatever you want, but again, don't you want to enjoy life?

People's opinions are just that. They create an illusion for themselves that things can be inherently good or bad when really everything is neutral. They need to realize that they should not just assume anything is good or bad since that only leads to perceptual error. I only seek the truth with no bias whatsoever.

This shouldn't be egocentric. People are innately worthy of not being smacked in the head or stabbed by virtue of being people.

As regards the end of your post, isn't your opinion that certain actions are good or bad? This is the whole presupposition for your argument.

Well, you definitely have a bias, as do I. That's hubris to think that your lens can be an objective one.

 

[Milo]

I think you missed my over-arching point (but I admit I probably wasn't clear enough). From your premise of 'enjoyment' as a life purpose, it follows that the 4 libertine's were justified in abusing and slaughtering the 46 victims if it ended in their own enjoyment.

And yes, DeadonDreaming, cray cray is one way of putting it.

I can assure you that the killers were not enjoying life in the same way I am describing. Those victims should have and probably did do their best to defend themselves. It is realistically every person for themselves in the pursuit of survival. When it comes to enjoyment, we need others to get the most of it, so if some of those people are people you cared about, then it would have probably been in your best interest to help save them.

 

[snafupants]

Mine is completely in order unless you can disprove it.

@Milo

Burden of proof works the other way around, at least in legal and philosophical circles. Most of this stuff is vaunted opinion anyway. That seems silly for me to make a grandiose claim about dark energy or twelve dimensions and challenge you to disprove it. At some juncture you need to ask which position is attuned more to the facts, even if some of the facts aren't in yet or prove difficult to parse for whatever reason. There isn't necessarily a totally right and totally wrong answer with many subjects and positions. I wouldn't conclude your theory is intellectually/ethically robust or "completely in order" at all. That's just arrogance, especially given the holes and egocentrism of the theory. I haven't seen any evidence to dissuade me from that position.

 

[Puffy]

It is realistically every person for themselves in the pursuit of survival.

This is the moral of the story to me. Only so many can be at the top. The powerful pursue power and hoard resources because it is in their interests to do so. The 4 libertine's are the 1% the victims are the rest of the world.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

@Milo

Burden of proof works the other way around, at least in legal and philosophical circles. Most of this stuff is vaunted opinion anyway. That seems silly for me to make a grandiose claim about dark energy or twelve dimensions and challenge you to disprove it. At some juncture you need to ask which position is attuned more to the facts, even if some of the facts aren't in yet or prove difficult to parse for whatever reason. There isn't necessarily a totally right and totally wrong answer with many subjects and positions. I wouldn't conclude your theory is intellectually/ethically robust or "completely in order" at all. That's just arrogance, especially given the holes and egocentrism of the theory. I haven't seen any evidence to dissuade me from that position.

I don't see any real reason to care about being egocentric. It actually makes sense not to give a fuck what others think and to be selfish, to seek out ones own desires regardless of the opinions of others. I do think it is logical, as long as your feelings don't get in the way it makes sense. Everyone might think you are a douche but as long as you are happy it shouldn't matter for you.

Milo has a point. Life has no objective meaning so you can do whatever you want. You didn't chose to be alive but you can chose to make the most of it, if you want to. Enjoying life feels better than not so why not enjoy it? What do you lose?

You might not enjoy everything in life but if you have the desire to continue living you probably enjoy at least one thing. This one thing then becomes your reason for living, more accurately, your love for doing this one thing is the reason you wish to continue living. In this way you can say that love is the only reason to live. You might say your intellectual pursuits are the reason you want to live. Are you sure that it is not your love for intellectual pursuits that makes you want to live? Otherwise, why would you care about such things, or anything for that matter? Maximizing the amount of things that you love will generally enrich your life experience, will it not?

We all die anyway so it doesn't matter what we do. Killing ourselves now accomplishes nothing and enjoying/hating life accomplishes nothing. I choose to enjoy life because it feels better and provides hope for the future, hope that perhaps by some miracle my life will not have to end and I can enjoy it for as long as possible.

It is realistically every person for themselves in the pursuit of survival.

Ditto.

 

[snafupants]

It is partially true that I enjoy sharing my ideas with others to help them see what I see. I also have another agenda to make sure I am right by having you all argue with me. The truth is what I want and I want everyone else to know it so they may live a better life with me.

There's absolutely nothing unique about this theory save its ridiculously overcooked ambition.

 

[Minuend]

It is partially true that I enjoy sharing my ideas with others to help them see what I see. I also have another agenda to make sure I am right by having you all argue with me. The truth is what I want and I want everyone else to know it so they may live a better life with me.

I don't know why any of you bother passed this point. If an argument is only about being "right" and shoving one's belief down another person's throat, then it's mute.

You might continue for 10 pages and we will still see the exact same things being said, because this discussion isn't on the path of exploration, but that of conviction. Have the Jehovah's Witness knocking on your door the last 10 years impressed you with a new approach lately?

Also there is a word for how your own beliefs are reinforced whenever you debate. You become more and more blind to see another perspective. Meaning that the truth will hide behind several layers of pinky curtains. I can't remember it right now, though, and I have work.

 

[addictedartist]

Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view.

Where an exhaustive search is impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution

nurture your nature
sequence your consequences,
think of your actions
you get nowhere if you dont start somewhere

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I don't see any real reason to care about being egocentric. It actually makes sense not to give a fuck what others think and to be selfish, to seek out ones own desires regardless of the opinions of others. I do think it is logical, as long as your feelings don't get in the way it makes sense. Everyone might think you are a douche but as long as you are happy it shouldn't matter for you.

Not really, dude.
We could (and do) accomplish much more cooperatively than individually.
Cohesive effort makes more of an impact. Physics. I wish most people would just stfu and focus on making space travel and colonization possible. Egocentrics are a cancer, fatal to goals that would require the unification and cooperative effort of a great number of humans (ie most things worth doing).

Who wants to die on Earth? Even if you're pampered and powerful, I just don't get it. I'd rather die on Mars or Gliese 581d from oxygen starvation or some horrific space illness while wishing I'd never boarded that damn spaceship.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Hmm, very interesting analysis you've done here. I agree with you that one of the most important components of the purpose of human life is to love. However, I would add that "to learn" should be part of it as well. If we love and learn, then we grow and help others to grow and forward the development of the human race.

 

[Architect]

Possibly true, probably saccharine anodyne. Certainly a purpose to life is to love; evolution has guaranteed that much. And I don't mean just Eros, but the full spectrum of love. The problem is that is a low calorie diet. Love is a wonderful thing but the 1960's discovered that there is more to life.

And so what is love? I alluded to it earlier, it is a technological development Evolution discovered. Single celled life forms don't love, reptiles surely don't love. Love was a concept developed by mammals. And here we get to what I think is the real purpose in live; development. Primarily technological, which I take in the broadest sense. Evolution has created some partially evolved primates (us) who are impelled to create the new, with love being a part of that.

What is a person's life but a series of creating the new? New school, new job, new mate, new children, new ideas, new money, new car ... our highest calling is to create something new.

 

[kantor1003]

Egocentricity doesn't necessarily exclude cooperation. Our current civilization is a testament to this, I think, when considering the amount of highly egocentric individuals manifesting their will by means of cooperation. Altruism, or varying amounts of selflessness, isn't a prerequisite to understand and make use of the benefits found in collaboration. Do you find this utterly disagreeable?
Arguably, one can look at many animal species, most of which being far from intelligent enough to extend empathy, or concern further than on a strictly individual level, but they still cooperate in order to benefit themselves by means of cooperation - benefiting the group in other words (I'm not including instinctive behavior). This may, of course, be an inaccurate observation, but I'm just throwing it out there.

We could (and do) accomplish much more cooperatively than individually.
Cohesive effort makes more of an impact. Physics. I wish most people would just stfu and focus of making space travel and colonization possible. Egocentrics are a cancer, fatal to goals that would require the unification and cooperative effort of a great number of humans (ie most things worth doing).

 

[kantor1003]

@snafupants
So we would be in agreement there. Not sure where we can go from there though. Constructing an ethics from this could be an interesting, probably a most difficult endeavor, or would one simply reinvent the wheel with it resulting in some kind of (if not actually) utilitarianism?

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

There's absolutely nothing unique about this theory save its ridiculously overcooked ambition.

You are right, it's nothing new. Actually it's ancient.

The problem is that many people don't think about it, they are stuck with the idea that the things they do in their lives matter. They think they must conform with society by acting a certain way, going to school, getting a job, getting married, and then dying. They think they have some kind of obligations to fulfill in their lives whether these things make them happy or not.

What's the point of this? Sounds like a big waste of a life.

I like ambitious endeavors, they make life exciting!

 

[PhoenixRising]

Possibly true, probably saccharine anodyne. Certainly a purpose to life is to love; evolution has guaranteed that much. And I don't mean just Eros, but the full spectrum of love. The problem is that is a low calorie diet. Love is a wonderful thing but the 1960's discovered that there is more to life.

And so what is love? I alluded to it earlier, it is a technological development Evolution discovered. Single celled life forms don't love, reptiles surely don't love. Love was a concept developed by mammals. And here we get to what I think is the real purpose in live; development. Primarily technological, which I take in the broadest sense. Evolution has created some partially evolved primates (us) who are impelled to create the new, with love being a part of that.

What is a person's life but a series of creating the new? New school, new job, new mate, new children, new ideas, new money, new car ... our highest calling is to create something new.

How can you possibly know for sure that reptiles or unicellular organisms don't love? That's like saying you know for sure that you do or do not have a soul. We just don't know what other species of animals feel or how they perceive the world.

You could argue that the neurotransmitters or neural structures associated with the emotion of love in human beings aren't present in other animals. That isn't even close to proving that other animals do not feel love. Different species use neurotransmitters in different ways. And we humans are so far from understanding our own brains and how they precisely work that we really have no place to talk about which neural pathways do what in other species.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

How can you possibly know for sure that reptiles or unicellular organisms don't love?

Spoiler

 

[PhoenixRising]

Spoiler

Thank you, that was very quick witted indeed

 

[Architect]

How can you possibly know for sure that reptiles or unicellular organisms don't love? That's like saying you know for sure that you do or do not have a soul. We just don't know what other species of animals feel or how they perceive the world..

I take pains to write what I mean, I said surely don't love, hardly an absolute statement. However I'd be willing to place a bet on that.

And single celled organisms can experience love? Please.

 

[Etheri]

I haven't read the entire thread. It's too long, I don't feel like reading all of it now. I'll do it later, I promise. I'm sorry if i'm stating things that have already been mentioned, or anything.

Or I could stick some tubes & sensors into my skull and electronically regulate my brian chemistry so I'm always happy all the time.

This idea has somewhat bothered me over the last years, as I realised it when a thought pattern alike milo's lead me to his same conclusion that we all strive for happiness, but seek it in diffrent places.

Would I mind being permanently happy due to drugs? Well, no, because i'd be permanently happy. The downside of drugs is that they wear off and that it is not sustainable. If it were sustainable, why the fuck not?

@Milo , while you make a valid point concerning the sustained effects, we should take into account the difficulty concerning your goals. You basically just told us 'we should strive to have a perfect relationship, and you'll feel great!'. Yeah, hadn't figured that one out yet. While dopamine might be less sustainable, it's also easier to come by... You aren't taking these things into account. Moral being that you should search happiness wherever you can find it, at the given moment. I'm sure any of us would go for cuddles in a perfect relationship over gluttony pretty much anytime.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I take pains to write what I mean, I said surely don't love, hardly an absolute statement. However I'd be willing to place a bet on that.

And single celled organisms can experience love? Please.

You are just a collection of single cells, and apparently you can love. Who knows how far back the ability to "feel" goes. Single cell organisms communicate with each other chemically, and what are neurotransmitters? Chemicals. What is the physical aspect of love? An electrochemical phenomenon. Who can say if the first creatures on earth to love were a group of bacteria who collectively decided to become the first slime mold in order to benefit the entire colony.

It would be biased to think that human beings and their cute furry counterparts have a monopoly on evolution.

 

[intpz]

*quickly skims through the OP*, while I do agree that to ME (the claim of "absolute meaning of life" is stupid) the meaning of life is to have a good time (and of course as much of it as possible), I disagree that it is love. I'd much prefer doing many other things before falling in love.

 

[Milo]

*quickly skims through the OP*, while I do agree that to ME (the claim of "absolute meaning of life" is stupid) the meaning of life is to have a good time (and of course as much of it as possible), I disagree that it is love. I'd much prefer doing many other things before falling in love.

I restated at the bottom that love was actually just the most efficient way to get happiness. I couldn't think of a better title though...

 

[Milo]

I haven't read the entire thread. It's too long, I don't feel like reading all of it now. I'll do it later, I promise. I'm sorry if i'm stating things that have already been mentioned, or anything.


This idea has somewhat bothered me over the last years, as I realised it when a thought pattern alike milo's lead me to his same conclusion that we all strive for happiness, but seek it in diffrent places.

Would I mind being permanently happy due to drugs? Well, no, because i'd be permanently happy. The downside of drugs is that they wear off and that it is not sustainable. If it were sustainable, why the fuck not?

@Milo , while you make a valid point concerning the sustained effects, we should take into account the difficulty concerning your goals. You basically just told us 'we should strive to have a perfect relationship, and you'll feel great!'. Yeah, hadn't figured that one out yet. While dopamine might be less sustainable, it's also easier to come by... You aren't taking these things into account. Moral being that you should search happiness wherever you can find it, at the given moment. I'm sure any of us would go for cuddles in a perfect relationship over gluttony pretty much anytime.

Thank you! This is probably the most valid point someone has made so far. Sharing love with someone is in my opinion, and I'm sure this goes for most everyone, the best feeling/mix of feelings one can experience (naturally of course). I haven't tried ecstasy. Haha. And it is true that it is hard to come by. That is why I think your best bet is just to love everyone for who they are and dismiss their flaws and realize they too enjoy the experience of love. That is all anyone really wants. When you work your ass off, you want someone to notice your hard work and admire you for it. When you tell a joke, you want to share laughter with your friends signifying acceptance by them. You do all these kinds of things for your loved ones so that you may feel love in return. So you might as well be sharing the love all the time to increase your chances of finding others who will love you. But, here is the thing. You must also not blatantly seek love, you must primarily focus on sharing it. It does sound altruistic, but it is completely the opposite. If you helped someone and got nothing in return, not a thank you, not a feeling, nothing, you probably wouldn't do it. What we do is based on perceived reward. Why fight it? Embrace that we are all selfish and give each other what everyone wants to maximize your own return. That is the logic I speak of based on (1.) of my original post (remember love is not the only thing, but it is on the top of the list).

(I know where a lot of you are coming from with your disagreements and I do not have enough time to explain a better way of saying it to you right now). Assume if I haven't responded to your argument that you have taken this out of context or have dismissed something from the first post. This post may be clear it up a bit as well.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

*quickly skims through the OP*, while I do agree that to ME (the claim of "absolute meaning of life" is stupid) the meaning of life is to have a good time (and of course as much of it as possible), I disagree that it is love. I'd much prefer doing many other things before falling in love.

When you state it like that, I agree. I don't think there is any inherent meaning in life. When I say we live for the things we love I'm not talking about mates or family, I'm talking about the things you enjoy doing that make you the most happy.

For some people, falling in love might be their greatest happiness. It isn't yours nor is it mine but I'm quite sure that both of us have things in our lives that we love doing. I'm not sure what the OP means but I'm arguing that we desire to live in order to experience these things which we love.

 

[redbaron]

What I thought while reading the OP.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXw6znXPfy4

 

[snafupants]

When you state it like that, I agree. I don't think there is any inherent meaning in life. When I say we live for the things we love I'm not talking about mates or family, I'm talking about the things you enjoy doing that make you the most happy.

For some people, falling in love might be their greatest happiness. It isn't yours nor is it mine but I'm quite sure that both of us have things in our lives that we love doing. I'm not sure what the OP means but I'm arguing that we desire to live in order to experience these things which we love.

That's hardly different from Nature's recipe of positive and negative reinforcement to enforce sex, food, sleep, and so forth. At any rate, I would argue that humans persist in life mainly because of self-preservation and fear. In the event that humans could painlessly kill themselves, or electively poof from the universe without a trace, there'd be considerably less than seven billion people on this planet today. Suicide would be commonplace provided death was less daunting and inscrutable. Face facts: the challenges and frustrations of life undoubtedly outweigh life's rewards and merits. The embryonic stages of life start with a trick via the exquisite pleasure of orgasm and its curious connection with fertilization. Why the chicanery? Why the tricks? Would anyone choose the awesome responsibility of new life under strictly rational considerations? Should they provided overpopulation, energy and food shortages, disease, and the like?

 

[Irukanji]

(I thought I posted this yesterday, but I must've exited before I posted it. Luckily the Lazarus plugin for firefox remembers )

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but I believe the meaning of life is to acquire knowledge, in its purest form. ie. Without emotional input clouding the results, without emotions restricting what can and can't be researched.

Love is an irrational emotion, people kill others in the name of it and even kill themselves because of it. People "love" inanimate objects. In my mind the word love has no true meaning in the world any more. Most emotions don't, for that matter, but love is one of those ones which I see abused in its usage. People confuse love with like, and people love objects which they barely like or even hate. If everybody was meant to love as their only life purpose, then we'd have no religion, no politics(or a very limited political structure) and as a consequence no wars, etc

In reality, if all humans loved, technological advancements would be slower than if we all hated each other. In order to win a war, we need to have superior technology which means we need superior information gathering and utilisation. For instance, building a rocket which can attack London to get around the Treaty of Versailles. Before that, rockets were limited to a few seconds air time.

But I'm going off track now, and I think the point has been made.

 

[addictedartist]

Love is symbol of unity of spirit which inhabits body and mind

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

That's hardly different from Nature's recipe of positive and negative reinforcement to enforce sex, food, sleep, and so forth. At any rate, I would argue that humans persist in life mainly because of self-preservation and fear. In the event that humans could painlessly kill themselves, or electively poof from the universe without a trace, there'd be considerably less than seven billion people on this planet today. Suicide would be commonplace provided death was less daunting and inscrutable. Face facts: the challenges and frustrations of life undoubtedly outweigh life's rewards and merits. The embryonic stages of life start with a trick via the exquisite pleasure of orgasm and its curious connection with fertilization. Why the chicanery? Why the tricks? Would anyone choose the awesome responsibility of new life under strictly rational considerations? Should they provided overpopulation, energy and food shortages, disease, and the like?

Meh, you are probably right. Many people probably want to live because they are afraid of dying, rational or not.

 

[intpz]

I restated at the bottom that love was actually just the most efficient way to get happiness. I couldn't think of a better title though...

"The meaning of life is to be happy", "...is to enjoy it." Just two examples from the top of my head.

When you state it like that, I agree. I don't think there is any inherent meaning in life. When I say we live for the things we love I'm not talking about mates or family, I'm talking about the things you enjoy doing that make you the most happy.

For some people, falling in love might be their greatest happiness. It isn't yours nor is it mine but I'm quite sure that both of us have things in our lives that we love doing. I'm not sure what the OP means but I'm arguing that we desire to live in order to experience these things which we love.

Well what other "meaning" could there be? There are people who enjoy not enjoying, which is also enjoying and happiness. Therefore, it's implicit, hence it renders this thread ultimately meaningless.

For someone it may be one thing, for me it's many things. For someone it may be love (loving), for some it may be fame (getting recognized on the street), having a shitload of money (just having it, sitting in the bank), programming (anything), etc.. For me it's closer to doing various things, sometimes unrelated, that I like, not just one ultimate thing.

 

[Milo]

What I thought while reading the OP.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXw6znXPfy4

Hahaha. "OMG, the answer to life is to love... that is so gay."

 

[snafupants]

Meh, you are probably right. Many people probably want to live because they are afraid of dying, rational or not.

@intpz
@Milo

It's really not even that they want to live. Instinct impels folks to fear the eminently unknown, the grandly unknowable: death. This is Nature's stratagem for ensuring the next generation. Danger is seen as pernicious to the self (subjectively: via the self's prism) to the degree that it's pernicious to one's ability to mate and create the next generation (objectively: in Nature's eyes). Once fertilization is complete, Nature throws women away as used napkins. People aren't embracing anything. They're running away from something and life is the fucking default. People distract themselves and enjoy moderate yet ephemeral happiness long enough such that mating trumps suicide and the species perseveres.

 

[Etheri]

I had wine. Not too much, but the bottle is empty. You have been warned.

(I know where a lot of you are coming from with your disagreements and I do not have enough time to explain a better way of saying it to you right now). Assume if I haven't responded to your argument that you have taken this out of context or have dismissed something from the first post. This post may be clear it up a bit as well.

Truth be told, in our society, my argument is alot less valuable than in ... any 3rd world country. It's not like food is an issue. Or health. Or sleep. These things are easy and implied to anyone on here. If I had to choose between food & shelter and love, ... I'd rather live than feed off love. (I doubt I can live on a diet of women).

But since we all get plenty of food, etc etc meaning plenty of dopamine, this gives you a headstart on your idea -despite not being 100% for the reasons you mentioned-

The second thought I had concerning your idea... Relationships aren't permanent. I love some of the people that meant alot to me still. If they need me, i'll do a LOT for them. They shaped me, they made me who I am, atleast in small parts. But in all honesty, I talk less than 5 times a year to over half of them, and then we're talking minor, awkward 10 minutes smalltalk. I don't know about you people, but I cannot manage to maintain a close relationship with anyone for longer than... 5 years? (and that's the maximum for now.) That means that between your periods of happiness, come periods of deep sadness and hurt.

Would I rather be permanently stable, not the happiest, but never truly sad, feeding off dopamine as it'd be I know. Rushing the high of my own thoughts, doing my own thing undistorted... Or would I go for times of happiness switched by times of sadness, the eternal cycle of love?

I can live with the meaning of life being happiness. Preferably sustainable. I argue that this method is love. While it's great, and when it comes around should definitely be considered as an option, I truly believe it is not the only way. Why would one screw over it's own options?

@intpz : Your argument comes off as : There are also stupid people. Their actions prove your arguments invalid, because they're stupid enough to do so. (not talking about you, talking about the 'people you're talking about' ... If you haven't lost me. D;

 

[intpz]

@intpz : Your argument comes off as : There are also stupid people. Their actions prove your arguments invalid, because they're stupid enough to do so. (not talking about you, talking about the 'people you're talking about' ... If you haven't lost me. D;

This means that you didn't get my argument at all.

 

[Etheri]

This means that you didn't get my argument at all.

Possible. Care to explain?

 

[intpz]

Possible. Care to explain?

It's explained well enough in the original post.

 

[Milo]

I had wine. Not too much, but the bottle is empty. You have been warned.



Truth be told, in our society, my argument is alot less valuable than in ... any 3rd world country. It's not like food is an issue. Or health. Or sleep. These things are easy and implied to anyone on here. If I had to choose between food & shelter and love, ... I'd rather live than feed off love. (I doubt I can live on a diet of women).

But since we all get plenty of food, etc etc meaning plenty of dopamine, this gives you a headstart on your idea -despite not being 100% for the reasons you mentioned-

The second thought I had concerning your idea... Relationships aren't permanent. I love some of the people that meant alot to me still. If they need me, i'll do a LOT for them. They shaped me, they made me who I am, atleast in small parts. But in all honesty, I talk less than 5 times a year to over half of them, and then we're talking minor, awkward 10 minutes smalltalk. I don't know about you people, but I cannot manage to maintain a close relationship with anyone for longer than... 5 years? (and that's the maximum for now.) That means that between your periods of happiness, come periods of deep sadness and hurt.

Would I rather be permanently stable, not the happiest, but never truly sad, feeding off dopamine as it'd be I know. Rushing the high of my own thoughts, doing my own thing undistorted... Or would I go for times of happiness switched by times of sadness, the eternal cycle of love?

I can live with the meaning of life being happiness. Preferably sustainable. I argue that this method is love. While it's great, and when it comes around should definitely be considered as an option, I truly believe it is not the only way. Why would one screw over it's own options?

@intpz : Your argument comes off as : There are also stupid people. Their actions prove your arguments invalid, because they're stupid enough to do so. (not talking about you, talking about the 'people you're talking about' ... If you haven't lost me. D;

Yeah, I pretty much agree. If I were starving to death, my priorities would change. But, again, I am talking about the long run. To sum this theory up to a few statements the only things that are necessary are what you subjectively enjoy and what allows you to live longer in order to get the most enjoyment.

For me, I have come to a point where I live pretty much completely in the present (I think about the future, but I don't worry about it is the best way to describe that perspective I guess). The past is completely gone unless I need to remember a fact to use. Actually, maybe a better way to put it is that all my emotions are reserved for the present moment while my logic can use the past, present, and future. This means if a relationship ends, I will feel sad very briefly and then logically look for someone else to chase after that good feeling again. I am always emotionally optimistic while logically realistic if you know what I mean.

 

[Milo]

@intpz
@Milo

It's really not even that they want to live. Instinct impels folks to fear the eminently unknown, the grandly unknowable: death. This is Nature's stratagem for ensuring the next generation. Danger is seen as pernicious to the self (subjectively: via the self's prism) to the degree that it's pernicious to one's ability to mate and create the next generation (objectively: in Nature's eyes). Once fertilization is complete, Nature throws women away as used napkins. People aren't embracing anything. They're running away from something and life is the fucking default. People distract themselves and enjoy moderate yet ephemeral happiness long enough such that mating trumps suicide and the species perseveres.

I want to live because I want to experience more. I am afraid I will miss something. You are right about nature, though after human birth, children require nurturing so they aren't as "thrown away" as you make it sound. But otherwise we are on the same page regauarding this. But nature's tendency is besides the point in this arguement. It is only a matter of the circumstances that nature has created while doing what it does, which means all the components that pertain to you and only you for this philosophy.

Are we still disagreeing about if getting the most enjoyment out of life as you can is logical or not? Or are you mostly disagreeing about the ways of going about that?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

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.

 

[snafupants]

I want to live because I want to experience more. I am afraid I will miss something. You are right about nature, though after human birth, children require nurturing so they aren't as "thrown away" as you make it sound. But otherwise we are on the same page regauarding this. But nature's tendency is besides the point in this arguement. It is only a matter of the circumstances that nature has created while doing what it does, which means all the components that pertain to you and only you for this philosophy.

Are we still disagreeing about if getting the most enjoyment out of life as you can is logical or not? Or are you mostly disagreeing about the ways of going about that?

@Milo

At center, people live out of fear and self-preservation. That's the core. That's the reason you are on this planet right now - thank your forebears. Whatever else happens and whatever meanings are subsequently construed is beside the point. If I placed a gun to someone's temple they would presumably squeal for me to let them live but they wouldn't be contemplating their bucket list; they'd be thinking about not dying. That's instinct. Blind yet judicious instinct.

 

[BigApplePi]

I believe your OP is pretty close except the chemical idea is misleading.

 

[addictedartist]

If I placed a gun to someone's temple ...

you may have missed the meaning of life,

 

[Da Blob]

The meaning of life is that which is contained between the beginning and end of life. This is true on a number of levels.

However, the goal of life is to Self. It is common to think of Self as a noun. However, Self as a verb, as a process, as a Work-In-Progress is a dynamic system well worth considering.

Perhaps the meaning of Love is to Live is a statement that contains truth, rather than the meaning of Life is to Love. However, defining the realities symbolized by these words would be quite an endeavor, for the acquisition of meaning requires the acquisition of boundaries of some kind. Everything that is real must have a beginning and an end in time or be bounded in space to a specified location/object/person. It would be difficult to bind Love, Life and Self to a meaning that actually meant anything