The Meaning Of Life An philosophy discussion

[Qop 0]

...I'll agree that no philosophy is completely rock-solid.

True. But there is one that comes quite close to it. The one scentence, the one thing to remember is this line:

"It is."

It may apply on anything you see, feel, hear, think about, etc. Try to divert that line.

[hast-webben 0]

Hi,

I didn't saied that I had the answers, but seem in an philosophical corner is these questions always the basicaly essense of all philosophical questions. I think that this issue is extremly exciting to discuss, and if I had the answer wouldn't I ever had asked. But god wipes is always optimal and the first step into the light. In not an negative guy, I'm just interested into philosophy.

 

Cheers

Jens

 

Hello your question daene that to have some kind of significance

A great many people are necessary to you believe that another one grew from the stars they think that you die and you go to heaven, I in my opinion believe that we expected always something positive but in reality the LIFE DOES NOT HAVE WHY TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANCE,

Simply he is stops

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Soleq 0]

Maybe they are curved lines, but they are still lines.  If I took a triangle and rounded the edges a bit, would it suddenly be a member of the class opposite the class of its former self?  My point is this: your definitions of what constitutes a 'pole' for dualism is arbitrary and without consistency.  As such, it ends up being a fancy form of 'I think (xxx) just because'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll start off by saying that philosophical discussions are always meant in respectful terms. I'd hate to convey a sense of hostility among us.

 

The poles for dualism are in fact opposite, but again, I remind you that you have to take the most basic forms. What you have created in your rounded-edge triangle is neither triangle nor blob: it lies somewhere in the middle. It's reasonable to acknowledge that not everything in life can be polar opposites, but polar opposites do in fact exist. Yes, there are instances where there is no middleground. Take for instance genders. You're either male, or you're female (discounting the so called "supermale" parrot fish ). And yes, definitions are dependent on the individual, so of course some people are going to view things a bit differently than others.

 

I think it's a bit rash to assume that just because you used a single example to say "this has no realistic opposite" (and to me, the example you used was comparable to "what's the opposite of a car?"), that the theory is nothing more than a parent using the old excuse "because I say so." Yes, philosophies are opinions, and I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with that. But tell me that when I ask "what's the opposite of love?" the first thing that pops in your mind isn't "hate." Sometimes things just seem arbitrary.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

I'll start off by saying that philosophical discussions are always meant in respectful terms.  I'd hate to convey a sense of hostility among us. 

 

The poles for dualism are in fact opposite, but again, I remind you that you have to take the most basic forms.  What you have created in your rounded-edge triangle is neither triangle nor blob: it lies somewhere in the middle.  It's reasonable to acknowledge that not everything in life can be polar opposites, but polar opposites do in fact exist.  Yes, there are instances where there is no middleground.  Take for instance genders.  You're either male, or you're female (discounting the so called "supermale" parrot fish  ).  And yes, definitions are dependent on the individual, so of course some people are going to view things a bit differently than others.

 

I think it's a bit rash to assume that just because you used a single example to say "this has no realistic opposite" (and to me, the example you used was comparable to "what's the opposite of a car?"), that the theory is nothing more than a parent using the old excuse "because I say so."  Yes, philosophies are opinions, and I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with that.  But tell me that when I ask "what's the opposite of love?" the first thing that pops in your mind isn't "hate."  Sometimes things just seem arbitrary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it actually hate? or are we just used to that pairing via socialization? My psych studies say that it is the later, and I have no reason to think that research was wrong.

 

Is hate really all that different from love? They are both strong emotions. They both exhibit a strong sense of craving, in one case for the good of another and in the other case for the bad. I actually think they are not so opposite, but are instead very similar. That one is good and the other is bad doesn't change that.

[Qop 0]

Take for instance genders. You're either male, or you're female

I don't wanna be annoying, but the thing is, there is a middle way in genders. They're called hermaphrodites, and have reproductive organs from male and female. According to dictionary.com:

 

Main Entry: her¡maph¡ro¡dite

Pronunciation: (")h&r-'maf-r&-"dIt

Function: noun

1 : an abnormal individual especially among the higher vertebrates having both male and female reproductive organs called also androgyne

2 : a plant or animal (as a hydra) that normally has both male and female reproductive organs : BISEXUAL âhermaphrodite adjective

Furthermore, there are also neutral people. They have no gender at all.

 

So there is basically always a middle way because of nearly every object on Earth there are such quantities, that there are always exceptions.

[wreslur 0]

hmmmm.... ok well i cant give you an exact thing becuase its part of a book i am currently working on but i will passage you... ehem How the Man Works Life in GeneralWell I got to thinking today... in school.Why is it such a hard pill to swallow when those we are seeing cheatWhy is it hard to take knowing someone you like is messing with someone elseThere’s a deep feeling deep down inside everyman to conquerEvery man lusts for two things, Food and PowerKnowing and sharing those intimate moments of high with someone makes you feel good and all but its not what we search for. When you think the person you share that intimate moment with is sharing it with someone else, makes you angry in two ways. Knowing that you didn't have her controlled enough to be with just you, and maybe the moment she shares with the other man is better than the one received from you. This Infuriates everyman I don't care who you are.We are not adjusted to our technology we were created to run around, have sex when we can, eat when we can, and rule over all other creatures. But now that we have done that so easily; we fight amongst ourselves (wars, grudges, fights, arguments.) In a sense the only way the world would only be perfect if there were no humans.We evolved from gorillas due to climate changes water and what not, we got water on our planet from an Ice Asteroid smashing into the earth (before dinosaurs even)when gorillas evolved they obtained opposable thumb (thumbs) which made all this technology possible. We were never meant to excel in the way we did.I think one of these days we will get smited and destroyed. Like when the ice asteroids came to earth. I think one of the days we will meet our maker and the words he will have for us will be... goodbye. Like hitting the restart button on a game.Jerry Friestad151989 AlabamaSue me…

[Soleq 0]

Is it actually hate? or are we just used to that pairing via socialization?  My psych studies say that it is the later, and I have no reason to think that research was wrong.

 

Is hate really all that different from love?  They are both strong emotions.  They both exhibit a strong sense of craving, in one case for the good of another and in the other case for the bad.  I actually think they are not so opposite, but are instead very similar.  That one is good and the other is bad doesn't change that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting connection. So playing devil's advocate, I ask of you now, does anything have a concrete opposite?

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Interesting connection.  So playing devil's advocate, I ask of you now, does anything have a concrete opposite?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, off the top of my head, I am inclined to say no. The most obvious example for dualism would be black/white. And here I talk about absolute black, or conceptual black (instead of some pigment), and the same for white. One absorbs all light, and the other reflects at all. So, from the standpoint of light reflectivity, they are indeed opposite. However, is this an absolute truth? Or is it an illusion of some sort? Well, if I take the standpoint, What color do I make my stealth bomber?(assuming you can use absolute colors in the way we use pigments), Black would be good, because it absorbs light, but white would be not terrible, since it would blend with clouds. Then all you would have to do is fly at cloud level. Not as good perhaps, but not opposite either. Not a great example, so let me try something else:

 

To make a better example, let me expand the concept of black and white. Black is absence, and white is existence. This is how we normally deal with them right?

These two things seem completely opposite right? Well, to make a practical matter of it all, is the glass half full or half empty? One answer is both. And that would be right. The other good answer is that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. The thing here is that a 'lack' is an illusion. We concieve of 'nothing' and treat it as a thing which has existence, both verbally and mentally. In this way, despite our assigning it the value of 'nothing', it is really something itself. These two 'poles' are the same, the only way we see them as opposite is through deluding ourselves.

 

Food for thought.

[cargeek 0]

To make a better example, let me expand the concept of black and white.  Black is absence, and white is existence.  This is how we normally deal with them right?

These two things seem completely opposite right?  Well, to make a practical matter of it all, is the glass half full or half empty?  One answer is both.  And that would be right.  The other good answer is that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.  The thing here is that a 'lack' is an illusion.  We concieve of 'nothing' and treat it as a thing which has existence, both verbally and mentally.  In this way, despite our assigning it the value of 'nothing', it is really something itself.  These two 'poles' are the same, the only way we see them as opposite is through deluding ourselves.

 

Food for thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That has to be the best description of "nothing". I don't know why...I guess I just like that it points out a very basic but very real flaw in the way we look at "nothing"...I don't know...I'm not contributing to the conversation any, so I'll go back to my corner now.

 

stephen

[hast-webben 0]

Well, off the top of my head, I am inclined to say no.  The most obvious example for dualism would be black/white.  And here I talk about absolute black, or conceptual black (instead of some pigment), and the same for white.  One absorbs all light, and the other reflects at all.  So, from the standpoint of light reflectivity, they are indeed opposite.  However, is this an absolute truth? Or is it an illusion of some sort?  Well, if I take the standpoint, What color do I make my stealth bomber?(assuming you can use absolute colors in the way we use pigments), Black would be good, because it absorbs light, but white would be not terrible, since  it would blend with clouds.  Then all you would have to do is fly at cloud level. Not as good perhaps, but not opposite either.  Not a great example, so let me try something else:

 

To make a better example, let me expand the concept of black and white.  Black is absence, and white is existence.  This is how we normally deal with them right?

These two things seem completely opposite right?  Well, to make a practical matter of it all, is the glass half full or half empty?  One answer is both.  And that would be right.  The other good answer is that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.  The thing here is that a 'lack' is an illusion.  We concieve of 'nothing' and treat it as a thing which has existence, both verbally and mentally.  In this way, despite our assigning it the value of 'nothing', it is really something itself.  These two 'poles' are the same, the only way we see them as opposite is through deluding ourselves.

 

Food for thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really interesting philosophy indeed. And your description about nothing looks also like "digging an half hole". What is a half glass of beer? A glass is a glass, even if its just half full or empty, so therefor has nothing also to be something or anything.

 

Cheers

Jens

[Soleq 0]

I've been thoroughly impressed by the responses here. Not only have I learned from the other people, most specifically MajesticTreeFrog, but new avenues of thought have been opened up. I apologize to the original thread poster for somewhat hijackin the thread, but it was somewhat based on it.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

I've been thoroughly impressed by the responses here.  Not only have I learned from the other people, most specifically MajesticTreeFrog, but new avenues of thought have been opened up.  I apologize to the original thread poster for somewhat hijackin the thread, but it was somewhat based on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed, this is why hashbang and I asked for this forum to be added. If everyone is willing to both listen honestly and openly, as well as speak clearly and un-emotionally(or at least relatively so) everyone benfits. I for one learned a lot form pbolduc in a thread that would have been in this forum had it existed at the time of that conversation.

[tattoopunk 0]

The most obvious answer is to live, to be and to survive. Some would say to worship a god and thus have a life after death, but what is the point of living so to live after death? Is not the point to live for oneself? To be happy and to further ones selfimage. To be free and to love. Is not that life?42: RIP Douglas Adams

[tattoopunk 0]

Every man lusts for two things, Food and Power

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what if a man lust for none of these, is he still a man or is he an animal? Though animals strive for these same things, does that make one greater than animals? Is it not human nature to strive for these things, and if he dos not stive for this is he above human nature?

[Xaine 0]

So is the meaning of life the same as what it means to be human?Everyone can agree that in the end all humans become dust and nothing more. Without God or any other religion that promises eternal life, this life is the only life we will ever have. All we can leave behind along with our dust is our name. So I believe that humans are in the constant search of immortality. Power, love, children, God are all ways to immortality. Of course, this is just my opinion and a generalization to a very diverse race, mind you.