The Meaning of Life is "To Love."

[snafupants]

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.

@Etheri

You critique the fallibility of public opinion, and grossly misapply it to me somehow, in the first portion and then use public opinion to ballast your argument in the second portion. Which is it? Since when does the quantity of thread contributions betoken the quality. Many people are on Facebook, and most of them are fucking idiots. Yeah and out of those one hundred plus replies in this thread, how many are intelligent, informed, and sincere? Also, did I claim my verdict was groundbreaking? You're pathetic. Until you present better arguments, I'm done.

 

[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.

[/COLOR]

@Etheri

You critique the fallibility of public opinion, and grossly misapply it to me somehow, in the first portion and then use public opinion to ballast your argument in the second portion. Which is it? Since when does the quantity of thread contributions betoken the quality. Many people are on Facebook, and most of them are fucking idiots. Yeah and out of those one hundred plus replies in this thread, how many are intelligent, informed, and sincere? Also, did I claim my verdict was groundbreaking? You're pathetic. Until you present better arguments, I'm done.

Stop trying to protect your ego. Why do you even use it? It's pointless. No one should care how others think of them. Stop trying to win an argument just for the sake of your pride, or at least use real infallible logic. Oh, and I could even use your own logic against you. Remember saying this?:

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.

When did I say my assertion was groundbreaking? You're the pathetic one if we should judge each other. Now stop harassing others and make some sense.

 

[PhoenixRising]

The meaning of life is different for everyone. The only thing that is consistent is the fact that we each have our own journey to go on in order to find out what the meaning of our life is.

And love is something unavoidable if you're truly living your life.

 

[redbaron]

Stop trying to protect your ego. Why do you even use it? It's pointless. No one should care how others think of them. Stop trying to win an argument just for the sake of your pride, or at least use real infallible logic. Oh, and I could even use your own logic against you. Remember saying this?:

What does his post have to do with ego? The assertion he was refuting was appallingly moronic and misinformed. If someone is going to twist his words and misrepresent his position, why shouldn't he respond? It's a forum, people come here to read and share opinions.

You mean like the 'real infallible logic' you're apparently using to infer what his purpose of argument is (as if you somehow know)? I found it funny that the quote. which was apparently, 'using his own logic against him' was completely pointless and failed to illustrate anything at all.

I really don't know if you realise this, but (at least to me) it really seems like the only person whose ego is at odds with reality here is yours. Most people are being pretty straightforward with their opinions, only you seem to be trying to discredit other people's motives for posting.

 

[Milo]

The discussion is open to those who do not care desire to critique the person behind the keyboard. I've had enough BS and will subsequently ignore any more posts on this topic.

 

[snafupants]

Stop trying to protect your ego. Why do you even use it? It's pointless. No one should care how others think of them. Stop trying to win an argument just for the sake of your pride, or at least use real infallible logic. Oh, and I could even use your own logic against you. Remember saying this?:



When did I say my assertion was groundbreaking? You're the pathetic one if we should judge each other. Now stop harassing others and make some sense.

@Milo

Exactly. I said the assertion wasn't groundbreaking, although your opinion appears to be at variance with this stance.

Where did I claim that my critique of this retarded thread was groundbreaking? I didn't because it's not. Like I said before, it's common sense.

I never explicitly said that you said that your theory was groundbreaking. It just seems like some run of the mill, twenty something revelation that's viewed in hindsight as obvious.

 

[Etheri]

>This thread sucks, lets, rather than giving valuable insight, hammer on that to further it's deterioration. I love how your arguments killed your previous post as much as my arguments would kill mine. Also, public opinion isn't an argument, however the goal of a thread is sharing opinions with eachother... If public opinion is being shared, then it's valuable enough as a thread. Now I can agree with redbaron, most of this has indeed been a pissing contest (and it looks like, right now, it is yet again.)

I've had a few thoughts which actually contain to this post, but at the time i was too drunk to bother posting sense here so i actually posted them on his wall. Well, there's one or two useful posts of mine here, too, and there are a few other sincere posts aswell. And then there's quite a bunch of posts over semantics, and now recently a lot over absolutely nothing.

I don't understand the idea of : It's bad, lets make it worse. I'll be trying to ignore the rest of the unrelated stuff.

 

[Da Blob]

This really is rather a humorous thread in light of the OP.

Is The Meaning of Life is "To Love"?

The answer to the question is "Yes!"

Therefore a corollary to that truth, is that those comments not lovingly-crafted are in themselves meaningless or dead ends.

It is rather pointless to speak of Meanings, Love and Life outside of a context of Self

 

[Milo]

This really is rather a humorous thread in light of the OP.

Is The Meaning of Life is "To Love"?

The answer to the question is "Yes!"

Therefore a corollary to that truth, is that those comments not lovingly-crafted are in themselves meaningless or dead ends.

It is rather pointless to speak of Meanings, Love and Life outside of a context of Self

Could you further explain the self? I am not sure I fully understood when you posted about it the first time.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I really don't know if you realise this, but (at least to me) it really seems like the only person whose ego is at odds with reality here is yours. Most people are being pretty straightforward with their opinions, only you seem to be trying to discredit other people's motives for posting.

Wow man. You need to check yourself:

Probably because you suck at phrasing your argument consistently.

You're a pretentious 21 year old...

I really don't care if you continue deluding yourself into seeing some sort of profound knowledge in what it is you're purporting.

and enjoyment is apparently all that you live for (seems a little sad and pathetic when I put it that way, actually).

You're not really arguing fairly, with loaded words, and throwing accusations when some of them could fit you also. Not talking about just this situation.

Not looking for a fight or anything, just being frank.

 

[Da Blob]

Could you further explain the self? I am not sure I fully understood when you posted about it the first time.

lol, actually I think I have posted about Self about 2,500 times.

So many of these threads contain a hidden theme about the nature and definition of the Human Self. Self and Identity provide the very foundation of being, yet so many humans make assumptions about Self that they never really examine or test.

We each seemingly come up with answers to the questions of "Who am I?" and "Why am I?", but for some those answers are never modified, for a static Self is important for many of the answers to following questions to hold true.

For example, is Self just a hairless chimp or is Self a Child of God? Is Self predetermined by genetics and environment or is Self the product of choices made as an exercise of free will? And so on and so forth through an entire spectrum of philosophical musings...

 

[snafupants]

>This thread sucks, lets, rather than giving valuable insight, hammer on that to further it's deterioration. I love how your arguments killed your previous post as much as my arguments would kill mine. Also, public opinion isn't an argument, however the goal of a thread is sharing opinions with eachother... If public opinion is being shared, then it's valuable enough as a thread. Now I can agree with redbaron, most of this has indeed been a pissing contest (and it looks like, right now, it is yet again.)

I've had a few thoughts which actually contain to this post, but at the time i was too drunk to bother posting sense here so i actually posted them on his wall. Well, there's one or two useful posts of mine here, too, and there are a few other sincere posts aswell. And then there's quite a bunch of posts over semantics, and now recently a lot over absolutely nothing.

I don't understand the idea of : It's bad, lets make it worse. I'll be trying to ignore the rest of the unrelated stuff.

@Etheri
@Milo

Yeah I scream back at charlatan preachers on the street so please forgo offense.

Whenever I see thoughtless bullshit I feel ethically compelled to disabuse the spewer.

 

[Milo]

lol, actually I think I have posted about Self about 2,500 times.

So many of these threads contain a hidden theme about the nature and definition of the Human Self. Self and Identity provide the very foundation of being, yet so many humans make assumptions about Self that they never really examine or test.

We each seemingly come up with answers to the questions of "Who am I?" and "Why am I?", but for some those answers are never modified, for a static Self is important for many of the answers to following questions to hold true.

For example, is Self just a hairless chimp or is Self a Child of God? Is Self predetermined by genetics and environment or is Self the product of choices made as an exercise of free will? And so on and so forth through an entire spectrum of philosophical musings...

So the Self is what I identify myself as and is the core of my identity which could be a way of recognizing the patterns in my thoughts and behavior? And, it is this Self that will determine my subjective interests that could possibly make this theory more complete in a more objective sense?

This means that by studying your thoughts and behavior, I could possibly conclude what it is you identify yourself as, though it would be difficult and depend on a lot of data. Right? Setting aside the fact that it is possible for your Self to change during the analysis, consciously or not.

If this is true, to the best of my knowledge, my Self is an animal that values human relationships and personal growth.

 

[BigApplePi]

So the Self is what I identify myself as and is the core of my identity ...

The self is centered around the body but radiates outward and in turn receives radiation from outside the body. It is not a fixed entity. The strength of the self diminishes as distance from its center increases.

Here is an elaboration though I'm not sure how well it fits:
Man's Nature

BTW, this self will be moving around the Adriatic Sea for a couple of weeks so it can't be said how well it can communicate.

 

[BigApplePi]

lol, actually I think I have posted about Self about 2,500 times.

A quickie count reveals 2,497 times but haste could prove inaccuracy.

 

[Da Blob]

So the Self is what I identify myself as and is the core of my identity which could be a way of recognizing the patterns in my thoughts and behavior? And, it is this Self that will determine my subjective interests that could possibly make this theory more complete in a more objective sense?

This means that by studying your thoughts and behavior, I could possibly conclude what it is you identify yourself as, though it would be difficult and depend on a lot of data. Right? Setting aside the fact that it is possible for your Self to change during the analysis, consciously or not.

If this is true, to the best of my knowledge, my Self is an animal that values human relationships and personal growth.

Self is a very difficult topic to speak of objectively, for in essence it is the Subject, the primal cause of consciousness, an irreducible phenomena that provides the foundation for all assumptions.

Each of the personal pronouns in the English language suggest a distinct state of consciousness of Self, but still and all the most distinguishing characteristic of Self could be that each Self, in a universe of nameless individual objects, has a name.

Individual and yet infinite Self Is, for there is no limit to the elements in the set of WE

 

[Da Blob]

The self is centered around the body but radiates outward and in turn receives radiation from outside the body. It is not a fixed entity. The strength of the self diminishes as distance from its center increases.

Here is an elaboration though I'm not sure how well it fits:
Man's Nature

BTW, this self will be moving around the Adriatic Sea for a couple of weeks so it can't be said how well it can communicate.

Well, do not allow one's failure to communicate to disrupt one's communion with that ancient horizon

 

[Reluctantly]

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.

I'm not sure though. If someone finds fault in someone else, it can be in relation to them-self and a sense of unspoken fairness being broken between them. That can be somewhat justified at times. But that's somewhat of a transient dislike that people are supposed to act on and correct if it bothers them, I would think. I'm assuming based on other things you've said that this doesn't/wouldn't apply to what you're saying.

I guess sometimes people dislike others for being weak or not living up to an expectation, but I suppose that kind of dislike would be different because it's about disappointment of a failed expectation - the loss of an ideal or dream perhaps that involves others. I could definitely see what you are saying as relating to this almost completely. I hope that's about right as I'm just curious what you're thinking, anyway.

 

[Milo]

I'm not sure though. If someone finds fault in someone else, it can be in relation to them-self and a sense of unspoken fairness being broken between them. That can be somewhat justified at times. But that's somewhat of a transient dislike that people are supposed to act on and correct if it bothers them, I would think. I'm assuming based on other things you've said that this doesn't/wouldn't apply to what you're saying.

I guess sometimes people dislike others for being weak or not living up to an expectation, but I suppose that kind of dislike would be different because it's about disappointment of a failed expectation - the loss of an ideal or dream perhaps that involves others. I could definitely see what you are saying as relating to this almost completely. I hope that's about right as I'm just curious what you're thinking, anyway.

I'm not sure what you're asking. What do I think about disliking others because they don't meet one of my own standards. If that's it, then idk. I have pretty much gotten rid of my standards for people unless they are threatening me physically, or if they are trying to insult me I usually just turn it around to make them look stupid, but I don't hold any judgments on them for very long at least.

 

[rattymat]

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?

I think that this is mostly correct, but I have trouble with understanding how nothing really matters=there is no goal that everyone should be going out to try and achieve, nor do I agree with those. Things DO matter, regardless of whether or not there is objective meaning. Perhaps there is no objective goal, but that seems obvious if one simply eliminates objective meaning. Still, there can be many subjective goals that people should be going out to try and achieve. In fact, setting goals is what progresses humans on the individual, and consequentially on the overall scale. Setting goals is a primary human function which has enabled us to advance as much as we have. Evolution yo. And if you did meant the latter, then setting goals and getting enjoyment out of life are not mutually exclusive. I think people need to determine how to set the right goals in order to achieve enjoyment, and certainly the process of working towards a goal can cause negative feelings of stress.

 

[snafupants]

I love how Milo belatedly called himself a beguiled nihilist, despite hot contest of that point earlier.

 

[Milo]

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

 

[topsy213]

What is the meaning of life? Perhaps an anticle I found here will help readers understand more-http://www.worldtransformation.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-life/

 

[Milo]

What is the meaning of life? Perhaps an anticle I found here will help readers understand more-http://www.worldtransformation.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-life/

@topsy213
Holy shit! This is the exact conclusion I come to every time I try to figure out the meaning of life/what matters.

I never thought of the evolution of the intellect though. Very interesting!
Thank you!

 

[snafupants]

@topsy213
Holy shit! This is the exact conclusion I come to every time I try to figure out the meaning of life/what matters.

I never thought of the evolution of the intellect though. Very interesting!
Thank you!

I'm skeptical of any article that name-drops Einstein for rhetorical clout. In fact, Einstein couldn't reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics so any ontological assertions need to be weighed carefully.

To piggyback on Thomas Sowell's point, great thinkers run into problems when they overstep their area of expertise. Einstein, unfortunately, is no exception to this rule - merely a fair philosopher.

 

[Milo]

I'm skeptical of any article that name-drops Einstein for rhetorical clout. In fact, Einstein couldn't reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics so any ontological assertions need to be weighed carefully.

To piggyback on Thomas Sowell's point, great thinkers run into problems when they overstep their area of expertise. Einstein, unfortunately, is no exception to this rule - merely a fair philosopher.

I never care about the names they put up. I just look at the arguments made. It's like math. You can do it in your head!

 

[Reluctantly]

There is no objective meaning to life

If life creates its own meaning, that's not really true because then the objective meaning of life is to create meaning, but

this sounds complicated. Can I just euthanize everyone instead if it gives me pleasure?

 

[Tony3d]

Are INTPs even capable of love?

 

[snafupants]

Are INTPs even capable of love?

Towards books and computers maybe.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Are INTPs even capable of love?

Towards books and computers maybe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bP48M2BEs0

 

[Milo]

If life creates its own meaning, that's not really true because then the objective meaning of life is to create meaning, but

this sounds complicated. Can I just euthanize everyone instead if it gives me pleasure?

You could, I guess? But evolutionary speaking all arrows point towards having good relationships with others to obtain real personal satisfaction. Think about it, without others or the possibility of others, life would be absolutely meaningless and depressing to any sane human.

What I got out of that article plus ideas from another book I've been reading was to appreciate the abilities of humanity/the abilities that one has, realize that you should act as your true self (don't help others just because you feel like you have to, do it because you have something you want to share), and to appreciate/enjoy/love all of your personal experiences, no matter what. The last one is more of a general perspective towards looking at everything through the same scope, its not really looking at each specific thing and trying to find what you like about it.

I took "God" as more of the state of awareness that I just described and I'm pretty sure it coincides with self-actualization, zen, and enlightenment. I'm doing it right now. Its a pretty unique experience.

 

[snafupants]

You could, I guess? But evolutionary speaking all arrows point towards having good relationships with others to obtain real personal satisfaction. Think about it, without others or the possibility of others, life would be absolutely meaningless and depressing to any sane human.

Good point. In fact, most human achievements are cocreated in subtle collaboration with other great minds. On an individual level, I have noticed that isolation usually leads to despair, irrespective of intellectual talent or unique personal circumstances. It's something you can't outrun.