The Meaning Of Life An philosophy discussion

[cornicopia 0]

i have thought about several different theories and one of them is: time streches infinately, so every possible thing that can happen HAS to happen at some point in time- every minute change, everything. and that is why this is happening right now, cause it has to at some point and this is the

 

I don't have the slightest idea of what is the meaning of life, but I think Christian's meaning of life is absolutely stupid and pointless.

 

I agree whith this as i think that religion may just be our imagination trying to come to terms that we are going to die and then just vanish. it is much easier to believe we will live on after we die. and each religion if you ask them would say that they just suddenly understood well how can this happen with more than one religion if one is right and the other is wrong. they must be imagining it. but they truely believe it. there is just so many holes in it - it becomes hard to believe. so for the moment i stand neutral.

[Yamato 0]

The meaning of my life is to live it to the fullest and to my happiest, and to ensure that those around me are enjoying their life to whatever extent I can. Until God comes down here and tells me to become a doctor, cure cancer, and learn to control the weather, I am perfectly fine just coasting along down this stream, not bothering anybody else.

[hast-webben 0]

Hi again,Long time no see. We have had several good and useful discussions about the meaning of life here, and I'm very proud of starting this...:-)How does your real life looks like?Mine is as follow:Go to work, get paid, pay bills and then get broke again.....:-(Does any than I feel it like this, if then why not start an discussion about that..Cheers!Jens

[Adwodon 0]

I believe in existentialism.For those who dont know what this is, its essentially that we are just a ball of mass floating on a big rock, no purpose no meaning.I dont believe in the divine and unless I see it first hand never will.However my outlook isnt as bleak as it sounds :rolleyes:As there is no god then anything is possible in my books, which means we can accomplish anything, and we arent bound by morals.So any man can do anything, I could become the greatest man on earth, only other men stand in my way.It would make the world a scary place if everyone thought this, noone would really care for others.I believe anyone is entitled to their own beliefs, I wont force mine on others, if they are willing I will happily try and tempt you to mine but not force. If someone wants religion to rule their life thats fine, religion is an excellent thing, it keeps control and order, of course there are religious conflicts but im talking on an everyday thing, it stops crime through fear of divine retribution etc And religous conflicts in my opion arent a bad thing, its something to die for, gives people a purpose, the people who are in the skirmish are there for their reasons, they want to defend the name of God. Its a better reason than to get some oil off an 'evil dictator'.I do not however like people being intorrerant of other cultures. I remember hearing people being outraged by the news of an indian man killing his daughter because she digraced the family name by marrying a white man. Its part of their culture, by our standards that wrong but not by theirs and that should be respected. True as he was living in our country he should have been aware of our culture and known that it was wrong by our standards... tricky situation aye.So what do I think the meaning of life is... well its a personal thing, you have to have a meaning or you wont succeed.The meaning of my life is purely to be recognised and loved, I wish to maintain happynes, I do not wish to be bound by things, but that doesnt mean I dont want a nice house, I just dont want to live for a house. I want to live for myself and those I love.

[hast-webben 0]

I believe in existentialism.

For those who dont know what this is, its essentially that we are just a ball of mass floating on a big rock, no purpose no meaning.

I dont believe in the divine and unless I see it first hand never will.

However my outlook isnt as bleak as it sounds

As there is no god then anything is possible in my books, which means we can accomplish anything, and we arent bound by morals.

So any man can do anything, I could become the greatest man on earth, only other men stand in my way.

It would make the world a scary place if everyone thought this, noone would really care for others.

I believe anyone is entitled to their own beliefs, I wont force mine on others, if they are willing I will happily try and tempt you to mine but not force.  If someone wants religion to rule their life thats fine, religion is an excellent thing, it keeps control and order, of course there are religious conflicts but im talking on an everyday thing, it stops crime through fear of divine retribution etc

And religous conflicts in my opion arent a bad thing, its something to die for, gives people a purpose, the people who are in the skirmish are there for their reasons, they want to defend the name of God.  Its a better reason than to get some oil off an 'evil dictator'.

I do not however like people being intorrerant of other cultures.  I remember hearing people being outraged by the news of an indian man killing his daughter because she digraced the family name by marrying a white man.  Its part of their culture, by our standards that wrong but not by theirs and that should be respected.  True as he was living in our country he should have been aware of our culture and known that it was wrong by our standards... tricky situation aye.

 

So what do I think the meaning of life is... well its a personal thing, you have to have a meaning or you wont succeed.

 

The meaning of my life is purely to be recognised and loved, I wish to maintain happynes, I do not wish to be bound by things, but that doesnt mean I dont want a nice house, I just dont want to live for a house.  I want to live for myself and those I love.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi,

 

I'm also into extentialism surch as Sartré and Kirkegaard. I also belive that humanism is extentialism. It was also the main idea about this discussion, go guide it into an extentialistic discussion about the meaning of life, and all those antihumanism that try to destroy the possiblieties to form your life into an correct way. So keep on writing.

 

Cheers,

 

Peace, force and joy

 

Jens

[hast-webben 0]

Hi,To all who is interested into extentialism and humanism would I warmly recommand you to search into the Newhumanist movement's sites. I know that it might be an jungle to find right sites, but as beginning can I recommand to just google after Newhumanism or siloism. I any should be intrested do I also have a couple of pubilcations that I could sent if you want to.See youPeace, force and joy...CheersJens

[tarun1405241491 0]

Majestictreefrog and qop may be right when they say there is no meaning to things, but the existentialist kind of thinking can easily degenrate into nihilism and defeatism.

Maybe our lives are just attempts just to seek happiness in as many forms as possible, both directly and indirectly...

 

"There is no one truth - that is the only truth"

This statement it true if you think abt it a lot. There is no single truth, truth itself is a perception and hence varies from person to person.

Even physical existence of an object has different meaning for different people.

We attempted to create common perception by creating things like measurements for physical objects, yet inspite of this, no person thinks the same thing about an object or fact or phenomenon.

[hast-webben 0]

Regarding What Is Human by SiloTortuguitas, Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 1, 1983 Talk in a Study GroupTo have an understanding of the human phenomenon in general is one thing, while one’s own register of the humanity of the other is something quite different. Let’s consider the first question—that is, an understanding of the human phenomenon in general.If one says that what is most characteristic of the human being is sociability, or language, or the transmission of experience, one still has not fully defined the human being, because we find all of these expressed in the animal world as well, if only in some elementary state of development. We can observe chemical recognition, and consequent attractions or rejections, in organisms of the hive, the school, or the pack. There are host, parasitic, and symbiotic forms of organization in which we can recognize elementary patterns of what we later see in more elaborate form in human groups. We also find a kind of animal “morality,” with social punishment for transgressors, even when those behaviors, viewed from the outside, might be interpreted on the basis of the instinct of preservation of the species or as a complex of conditioned and unconditioned reflexes. Rudimentary technology is also not unknown in the animal world, nor are the emotions of affection, hostility, grief, and solidarity, whether among members of a group, or between groups, or between species. Well then, what is it that defines what is human as such, if not the reflection of the socio-historical as personal memory? Every animal is always the first animal, while every human being is his or her historical and social environment, along with a reflection of, and a contribution to, the transformation or inertia of that environment. For an animal, the environment is the natural environment. For the human being, the environment is the historical and social environment, the transformation of that environment, and certainly the adaptation of nature to both immediate and longer-term needs. When compared to the systems of ideation, behavior, and life of the animal world, the human being’s deferred response to immediate stimuli—the meaning and direction of human labor with respect to a future that is planned (or imagined)—presents us with a new characteristic. The broadening of the temporal horizon of human consciousness allows it to delay responses to stimuli, locating such phenomena in a complex mental space configured for the placement of deliberations, comparisons, and conclusions that lie outside the field of immediate perception. In other words, in the human being there is no human “nature” unless this “nature” is considered a capacity, distinct from that of other animals, to move through various times that are outside the horizon of perception. Putting this in yet another way, if there is something “natural” in the human being, it is not in the mineral, vegetable, or animal sense, but rather in the sense that what is natural in the human being is change, history, transformation. It is difficult to adequately reconcile the idea of change with the idea of nature, and therefore we prefer not to use the word nature as it has been used in the past—this term that has been so often used to justify all sorts of treachery toward the human being. For example, simply because the original inhabitants of a particular place appeared different from their foreign conquerors, these inhabitants were called aboriginals or “natives.” Because other races presented different morphologies or coloration, they were ascribed different “natures” within the human species, and so on. Thus, there was a “natural” order, and changing that order was a sin against all that was eternally established. Different races, different sexes, different social positions—all were fixed within a supposedly natural order that was to be conserved for all time.The idea of “human nature” that had served an order of natural production broke down in the period of industrial transformation. Yet even today we still see vestiges of the zoological ideology of human nature—in the field of psychology, for example, in which people still talk about certain natural faculties such as the “will” and similar things. Natural law, the State as part of a projected human nature, and other such notions have not contributed to progress, but only to historical inertia and the negation of transformation. If copresence in human consciousness functions because of its enormous temporal broadening, and if the intentionality of human consciousness allows it to project a meaning, then what is most characteristic of the human being is being and making the meaning of the world. As this is said in Humanize the Earth: Namer of a thousand names, maker of meanings, transformer of the world, your parents and the parents of your parents continue in you. You are not a fallen star but a brilliant arrow flying toward the heavens. You are the meaning of the world, and when you clarify your meaning you illuminate the earth. When you lose your meaning, the earth becomes darkened and the abyss opens. I will tell you the meaning of your life here: It is to humanize the earth. And what does it mean to humanize the earth? It is to surpass pain and suffering; it is to learn without limits; it is to love the reality you build. We stand, then, at a great distance from the idea of human nature—in fact, at its polar opposite. What I mean is that if an imposed, supposedly permanent order, a “nature,” has ended up suffocating that which is human, now we are saying the contrary: What is natural must be humanized, and this humanization of the world makes humankind a creator of meaning, direction, and transformation. And if that meaning liberates us from the supposedly “natural” conditions of pain and suffering, then what is truly human is what goes beyond the natural—it is your project, your future; it is your child; it is your dawn; it is your breeze and your storm; it is your anger and your caress; it is your fear and trembling for a future, for a new human being free from pain and suffering.Let’s now consider the second question: one’s own register of the humanity of others.Insofar as one registers the presence of the other as “natural,” then the other will be no more than an object-like, or perhaps animal presence. Insofar as one is anesthetized against perceiving the temporal horizon of the other, the other will have no meaning beyond a for-me. The nature of the other person will be a for-me. But when I constitute the other person as a for-me, I constitute and alienate myself in my own for-myself. I say, “I am for-me,” and in saying that I close my horizon of transformation. People who make others into “things” make themselves into things, too, thereby closing off their own horizons. Insofar as I do not experience the other except as a for-me, my vital activity will not humanize the world. The other must be an inner register for me, a warm sensation of an open future that does not end in the objectifying non-meaning of death. To feel that which is human in the other is to feel the life of the other in a beautiful, multicolored rainbow that moves farther and farther away the more I try to stop, to seize, to capture its expression. You grow farther away, and I take comfort if I have helped you to break your chains, to overcome your pain and suffering. And if you accompany me, it is because in a free act you constitute yourself as a human being, and not simply because you were born “human.” I sense in you the liberty and the possibility of your constituting yourself as a human being, and in you my acts find the liberty at which they aim. And so, not even your death can halt the actions you set in motion, because you are in essence time and liberty. What I love in the human being, then, is its growing humanization. And in these times of crisis, reification, and dehumanization, I love the possibility of the human being’s future vindication.

[hast-webben 0]

Hi,In my past post was to set this discussion about meaning of life on fire. As you can see there is it from an discussion about how to be an human, and the diffrence between an human and a animal, but also to set an diffinition on what an human is, and why an human is as unik compared to an animal.We have had several independet and individual discussions themed "Meaning of Life", and now do I like to take that conclusion based on this discussion that we all agree that there has to be an meaning about life and put it into new direction that has to find out then what contents there has to be into an human life to give it an meaning.So regarding above would it be intersting to continue our discussion from this point, and I really hope that everyone would give an clue if they agree or not.Look foreward to many exciting hours more here....:-)Cheers! and best regardsPeace, force and joyJens

[Glockmeister1405241492 0]

If I can have a bit of a say of the meaning of life here... I think the meaning of life is different for each person. The meaning of life is set through the goals that we want, achieve, or even goals that we don't achieve. Our beliefs, upbringing, friends will shape what we see as the 'meaning of life.' For example, Catholic would believe the the meaning of life is to live a good life so we can live in heeaven when we die. Other people may believe different things.Some people may not be religous at all, and may believe different interpetions of the 'meaning of life.'

[qwijibow 0]

What if there is no meaning.The only meaning to it all, is the desire to pass on your DNA.The only reason you have a desire to pass on your DNA, is because things that dont desire ot pass on DNA, dont do it, die, and therfore no-longer exist.Beeing Social is fun because because it gets you a place in a social hierachy, with potential mates (for sex)Fruiends are fun ecause of safety in numbers.Death of a family member is sad because its part of yuor DNA, making Death a sad experiance is natures way of forcing you to help your family, keeping the DNA alive.What was that phychologists name ?? Froid ?He was right.. everything you do, evertything that drives you is designed to make you pass on your DNA.The meaning of life, if anything is the attempt at immortailty via re-production.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Well, what I don't get is why people need to know. Whatever the point is, it wouldn't change anything from what already exists. Conversely, the point, if there is one, must be contained in the things that exist already. I should note I use the concepts of "things" and "existence" rather loosely here.

[Glockmeister1405241492 0]

What if there is no meaning.

The only meaning to it all, is the desire to pass on your DNA.

 

The only reason you have a desire to pass on your DNA, is because things that dont desire ot pass on DNA, dont do it, die, and therfore no-longer exist.

 

Beeing Social is fun because because it gets you a place in a social hierachy, with potential mates (for sex)

 

Fruiends are fun ecause of safety in numbers.

 

Death of a family member is sad because its part of yuor DNA, making Death a sad experiance is natures way of forcing you to help your family, keeping the DNA alive.

 

What was that phychologists name ?? Froid ?

He was right.. everything you do, evertything that drives you is designed to make you pass on your DNA.

 

The meaning of life, if anything is the attempt at immortailty via re-production.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sigmund Freid, was the guys name i think. He was a psychiatrist (physiology didn't exist then),

 

Anyway, your definition of life is a very scientific one, which when some people who are regious, may not believe in at at all.

 

My contribution to this, that the meaning of life can be totally different from each other. For example,

 

life

n. pl. lives (lvz)

1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

(Text devived from http://www.dictionary.com/)

 

is the meaning of life, when it comes to a dictionary. However, I can't see that as the meaning of life, because of how cold, depressive it is. I think most people would agree with me on this one.

 

You have your meaning in a scientific way. However, different people would believe different things.

 

Well, what I don't get is why people need to know. Whatever the point is, it wouldn't change anything from what already exists. Conversely, the point, if there is one, must be contained in the things that exist already. I should note I use the concepts of "things" and "existence" rather loosely here.

We ask that question, because of the same reason why we have science. Why?. Humans have always been curious about their past, and as such, they want to know, what is there pupose in life? Why we are here? It is hard to explain, but I think that gets the gist of it.

[mitchellmckain 0]

Regarding What Is Human by Silo

Tortuguitas, Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 1, 1983

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hast-webben has apparently started this discussion of the meaning of life in order to introduce the New Humanism of Silo. Ok so I looked into it a little and found what is apparently a humanist sect that aims at world unification or at least world peace based on humanism. I found some descriptions of their beliefs and some criticisms of their practices. The one thing I did not find was a history. Having spent some time in a similar organization, I know how difficult it is to evaluate such an organization from the outside. often the message they tell the public and what they tell members can be quite different. In fact their can be more than one circle of membership and thus more than one such discrepancy in doctrine.

 

Here is a quote of their doctrine from one website: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

But for a planet that is today rapidly being unified, in which peoples are thrown together without choice, with distinct visions of the world confronting each other, with differing purposes and contrasting values â what can we find to serve as a common denominator to make possible a convergence, a uniting of the many peoples, the many cultures, the many religions? How can people come together to create a truly universal human nation? In Siloâs formulation this is possible through each cultureâs discovering or rediscovering in its history those humanist historical "moments" in which their best productions and actions have been linked to the following parameters: 1) The central position of the human being as a value and concern; 2) An affirmation of the equality of all human beings; 3) A recognition of cultural and personal diversity; 4) The development of knowledge beyond that accepted as absolute truth; 5) The affirmation of the freedom of ideas and beliefs; and 6) The repudiation of violence.

hast-webben has connected this introduction to Siloism to his starting topic by transmitting the content of a talk apparently by this person named Silo in Argentina.

 

I will tell you the meaning of your life here: It is to humanize the earth. And what does it mean to humanize the earth? It is to surpass pain and suffering; it is to learn without limits; it is to love the reality you build.

Well this is appears to be a talk to the inner circle, to members of the sect, calling upon them to subjugate their purpose in life to the purpose of the sect. If these members choose this for their purpose, the more power to them. I hope they have a good experience, though I can guarantee that not all of them will since that is the reality in human endeavors.

 

If there is anything I am not completely comfortable with, it is "the central postion of the human being as a value and concern" and the idea of "humanizing the earth". Although I think much of the analysis of the difference between humans and animals has a great deal of truth to it, I think the status of man is not entirely decided. I think that the difference is more of a goal to aim for rather than an accomplishment to boast of. Besides the differences are only one side of the story. The commonalities are also important.

 

I am not completely sure that I understand what is meant by "The development of knowledge beyond that accepted as absolute truth". It sounds a little bit like a recognition of the importance of science in addition to religion, but who knows.

 

One of the greatest flaws of Christianity is the failure to give any regard or respect to the natural world. Of course this does not mean that most christians do not have such respect, but the absence of that regard in their central teachings is troubling. Well I see the same flaw in Siloism. In addition I am troubled by the careful avoidance of the term religion.

[iGuest 3]

I think there are three main reasons for life, not just one. The first is to prove we are not God, and we won't ever be. The second is so that we can prove we deserve to live in heaven, prove it in how we treat others. And the third is to help up appreciate heaven a little more. If we just got in, no questions asked, then it would seem so... average. We have to live life so we may know suffering, so that when we escape suffering, it is meaningful to us.But that is just my opinion. I mean no insult to other people or religions whose beliefs differ from mine.