The Meaning of Life

Off Topic
21

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Branded1 wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
Branded1 wrote:
The meaning of life is to convert as much high quality energy to low quality energy as possible.

/end thread

?

It’s thermodynamics. The idea is that every conversion from one form of energy to another, say heat energy to electric energy, creates a small amount of the lowest grade of energy called entropy. The universe strives to convert all energy to entropy which is what’s going to happen far off in the future.

it is not a meaning.

My own personal little view is that there is no meaning. Imagine a vector. What can you say about it other than its lenght and his direction. What can you about a particule other than its mass, the area it occupies in space and how it moves? so what can you say about the whole universe? there is no ‘‘ultimate hidden truth’’

you get the idea
[/quote]

Yeah, I get the idea and it was pretty much what I meant. The only “true” purpose we have is to join the process of degrading energy, which the universe is already doing spontaneously, and do it in whatever way we find meaningful.

22

[quote]Branded1 wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
Branded1 wrote:
The meaning of life is to convert as much high quality energy to low quality energy as possible.

/end thread

?

It’s thermodynamics. The idea is that every conversion from one form of energy to another, say heat energy to electric energy, creates a small amount of the lowest grade of energy called entropy. The universe strives to convert all energy to entropy which is what’s going to happen far off in the future. [/quote]

I would echo what Branded1 is saying here.

However, if you specifically want to know what the meaning of HUMAN life is, that is even simpler:

  1. To make history
  2. To make children

Do one or the other and you’ve done an okay job at life. Do both and you will be superior.

23

[quote]mr popular wrote:
Branded1 wrote:
jasmincar wrote:

However, if you specifically want to know what the meaning of HUMAN life is, that is even simpler:

  1. To make history
  2. To make children

Do one or the other and you’ve done an okay job at life. Do both and you will be superior.[/quote]

I dont agree. I dont give a shit if I make history or not. I will be dead anyway. What, is it that you want your ego to be timeless?

And anyway, no one cares.

24

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
No it doesn’t.

If you find the meaning of life in someone else’s words, and not your own deeds, goals and accomplishments then you have missed the point.

She wrote her own philosophies on life, which are very good. For her.

We should each write our own. To glom off of someone else’s personal philosophy is to shortchange yourself of the experience, knowledge and ability to have your own.

All that this Ayn Rand worship means is that you have forfeited your own autonomy.
[/quote]

Good post…good enough that HH didn’t bother refuting it.

25

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
No it doesn’t.

If you find the meaning of life in someone else’s words, and not your own deeds, goals and accomplishments then you have missed the point.

She wrote her own philosophies on life, which are very good. For her.

We should each write our own. To glom off of someone else’s personal philosophy is to shortchange yourself of the experience, knowledge and ability to have your own.

All that this Ayn Rand worship means is that you have forfeited your own autonomy.

Well said, Skyzyks!

Of course your common sense will be lost on HH.

What would you know about common sense? You’re a lib.

[/quote]

This comment from the same idiot who questioned the forum here whether he should buy a dildo for his prepubescent daughter? Ha!

26

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
mr popular wrote:
Branded1 wrote:
jasmincar wrote:

However, if you specifically want to know what the meaning of HUMAN life is, that is even simpler:

  1. To make history
  2. To make children

Do one or the other and you’ve done an okay job at life. Do both and you will be superior.

I dont agree. I dont give a shit if I make history or not. I will be dead anyway. What, is it that you want your ego to be timeless?

And anyway, no one cares.[/quote]

The fact that you will die anyway is the entire point behind reproduction - both physical/genetic and cultural/historical reproduction of yourself.

The fact that you don’t care doesn’t change anything.

27

[quote]mr popular wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
mr popular wrote:
Branded1 wrote:
jasmincar wrote:

However, if you specifically want to know what the meaning of HUMAN life is, that is even simpler:

  1. To make history
  2. To make children

Do one or the other and you’ve done an okay job at life. Do both and you will be superior.

I dont agree. I dont give a shit if I make history or not. I will be dead anyway. What, is it that you want your ego to be timeless?

And anyway, no one cares.

The fact that you will die anyway is the entire point behind reproduction - both physical/genetic and cultural/historical reproduction of yourself.

The fact that you don’t care doesn’t change anything.[/quote]

so you say that we have a natural instinct to have a cultural/historical reproduction of ourselves? hahaha. You are probably the only one who is thinking that on the entire planet.
Genes dont reproducts themselves with glorious sculpture.

and I dont think (for the men anyway) that we have a natural urge to make children. We have a natural urge to have sex, but we dont crave having childrens. So even If you wear a rubber ‘‘the meaning of your life’’ will be fulfilled

28

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And since when has “gloming” off someone elses “personal philosophy is to shortchange yourself of the experience, knowledge and ability to have your own” been so new and how would philosophy differ from religion then? :slight_smile: Frankly, unless you had a pretty weak mind or, you were “indoctrinated” into some philosophy, I fail to see how such a thing could occur. Two people can read the exact same paragraph and come away agreeing, disagreeing, accepting part of it, or understanding none of it. The point is, it will usually be “visible” according to our own lense.

[/quote]

Since when? Since people “find something” that someone else wrote, or actually found, and stop looking for their own. Kind of like some of the twats on this site that think that reading a couple of articles on the internet is “research”.

It’s intellectual laziness disguised as seeking.

Rand and many others found the meaning of their own lives, and wrote it down. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then shouldn’t a budding philosopher do the same? Find their own philosophy or meaning of life, and write their own?

How can they do that if they have settled for someone else’s? Hence the “glomming” and shortchanging criticism. A person who doesn’t have the experience of seeking the meaning of their own life would lack the knowledge of what it is, and therefore not have the ability to develop their own.

Don’t get me wrong, I find studying philosophy and ethics very valuable. But applying them to life and developing your own understanding of them, and the conclusions which are the products of this combination of knowledge and experience are far more valuable.

For the record, I find HH pretty interesting. I would rather hear his opinions straight from the horses mouth than from some four minute blurb on youtube.

29

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
No it doesn’t.

If you find the meaning of life in someone else’s words, and not your own deeds, goals and accomplishments then you have missed the point.

She wrote her own philosophies on life, which are very good. For her.

We should each write our own. To glom off of someone else’s personal philosophy is to shortchange yourself of the experience, knowledge and ability to have your own.

All that this Ayn Rand worship means is that you have forfeited your own autonomy.
[/quote]

So if Ayn Rand’s philosophy is that purpose of man’s life is to achieve success and happiness, what would you prefer as an alternative? Failure and misery? If hers is the philsophy of reason, would your preference for writing your own philosophy compel you to be anything other than reasonable? If you don’t believe that any one philosophy is correct, do you believe that “truth is what’s true to you,” as L. Ron Hubbard said?

30

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:

And since when has “gloming” off someone elses “personal philosophy is to shortchange yourself of the experience, knowledge and ability to have your own” been so new and how would philosophy differ from religion then? :slight_smile: Frankly, unless you had a pretty weak mind or, you were “indoctrinated” into some philosophy, I fail to see how such a thing could occur. Two people can read the exact same paragraph and come away agreeing, disagreeing, accepting part of it, or understanding none of it. The point is, it will usually be “visible” according to our own lense.

Since when? Since people “find something” that someone else wrote, or actually found, and stop looking for their own. Kind of like some of the twats on this site that think that reading a couple of articles on the internet is “research”.

It’s intellectual laziness disguised as seeking.

Rand and many others found the meaning of their own lives, and wrote it down. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then shouldn’t a budding philosopher do the same? Find their own philosophy or meaning of life, and write their own?

How can they do that if they have settled for someone else’s? Hence the “glomming” and shortchanging criticism. A person who doesn’t have the experience of seeking the meaning of their own life would lack the knowledge of what it is, and therefore not have the ability to develop their own.

Don’t get me wrong, I find studying philosophy and ethics very valuable. But applying them to life and developing your own understanding of them, and the conclusions which are the products of this combination of knowledge and experience are far more valuable.

For the record, I find HH pretty interesting. I would rather hear his opinions straight from the horses mouth than from some four minute blurb on youtube.

[/quote]

You’re assuming intellectual laziness instead of inspiration or learning. I think most intelligent people are capable of your closing paragraph.

31

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
No it doesn’t.

If you find the meaning of life in someone else’s words, and not your own deeds, goals and accomplishments then you have missed the point.

She wrote her own philosophies on life, which are very good. For her.

We should each write our own. To glom off of someone else’s personal philosophy is to shortchange yourself of the experience, knowledge and ability to have your own.

All that this Ayn Rand worship means is that you have forfeited your own autonomy.

Good post…good enough that HH didn’t bother refuting it. [/quote]

No I didn’t bother because his point is meaningless – just because you like and admire a particular philosophy doesn’t reduce anyone’s autonomy.

Do you lose autonomy if you agree with Abe Lincoln that slavery is evil?

32

[quote]belligerent wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
No it doesn’t.

If you find the meaning of life in someone else’s words, and not your own deeds, goals and accomplishments then you have missed the point.

She wrote her own philosophies on life, which are very good. For her.

We should each write our own. To glom off of someone else’s personal philosophy is to shortchange yourself of the experience, knowledge and ability to have your own.

All that this Ayn Rand worship means is that you have forfeited your own autonomy.

So if Ayn Rand’s philosophy is that purpose of man’s life is to achieve success and happiness, what would you prefer as an alternative? Failure and misery? If hers is the philsophy of reason, would your preference for writing your own philosophy compel you to be anything other than reasonable? If you don’t believe that any one philosophy is correct, do you believe that “truth is what’s true to you,” as L. Ron Hubbard said?
[/quote]

Exactly. If someone professes logic and reason, I should ‘go my own way’ by rejecting those?

Libs regard all philosophies as much the same and a matter of choice. This is because they don’t really believe anything has value. Liberalism is rooted in nihilism.

33

[quote]belligerent wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
No it doesn’t.

If you find the meaning of life in someone else’s words, and not your own deeds, goals and accomplishments then you have missed the point.

She wrote her own philosophies on life, which are very good. For her.

We should each write our own. To glom off of someone else’s personal philosophy is to shortchange yourself of the experience, knowledge and ability to have your own.

All that this Ayn Rand worship means is that you have forfeited your own autonomy.

So if Ayn Rand’s philosophy is that purpose of man’s life is to achieve success and happiness, what would you prefer as an alternative? Failure and misery? If hers is the philsophy of reason, would your preference for writing your own philosophy compel you to be anything other than reasonable? If you don’t believe that any one philosophy is correct, do you believe that “truth is what’s true to you,” as L. Ron Hubbard said?
[/quote]

Have you ever found joy in something for no reason in particular?

Like a pretty woman?

Prefer an apple over an orange?

Also, It’s not a matter of whether or not I believe her or any other philosophy of reason is correct or not.

People can arrive at the same conclusions from different points. Or entirely different ones from the same points.

34

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The responses here somewhat match my view that 70% of people are raving morons, while 30% are somewhat rational.

“I will stop the motor of the world.”
— John Galt/Alan Greenspan

You all DO know that Alan (a member of Ms. Rand’s inner circle) has destroyed your world?[/quote]

But is Alan Greenspan really analogous to John Galt?

35

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
belligerent wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
No it doesn’t.

If you find the meaning of life in someone else’s words, and not your own deeds, goals and accomplishments then you have missed the point.

She wrote her own philosophies on life, which are very good. For her.

We should each write our own. To glom off of someone else’s personal philosophy is to shortchange yourself of the experience, knowledge and ability to have your own.

All that this Ayn Rand worship means is that you have forfeited your own autonomy.

So if Ayn Rand’s philosophy is that purpose of man’s life is to achieve success and happiness, what would you prefer as an alternative? Failure and misery? If hers is the philsophy of reason, would your preference for writing your own philosophy compel you to be anything other than reasonable? If you don’t believe that any one philosophy is correct, do you believe that “truth is what’s true to you,” as L. Ron Hubbard said?

Have you ever found joy in something for no reason in particular?

Like a pretty woman?

Prefer an apple over an orange?

Also, It’s not a matter of whether or not I believe her or any other philosophy of reason is correct or not.

People can arrive at the same conclusions from different points. Or entirely different ones from the same points.

[/quote]

But you are a human being. Your happiness is what suits you as human. So…what is a human being?

Aristotle defines a human as one whose thinking is conceptual, i.e. the animal that uses reason. If true (it is), it follows that happiness is what promotes or enhances you AS A RATIONAL BEING.

Thus, wallowing in drugs or sluts is not true happiness. Watching Obama and his minions abscond with the money you worked for and earned is NOT happiness, no matter how ‘noble’ the goal. Taking part in the looting of America is not true happiness (its the happiness of lowlife scum though).

Ms. Rand’s books sell well because she express the heart and soul of a great nation, a nation that is currently driven underground by the rule of the thugs and creatures. But the thugs and creatures rely upon the men who produce, as victims. What’s going to be the outcome of THAT?

36

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The responses here somewhat match my view that 70% of people are raving morons, while 30% are somewhat rational.

“I will stop the motor of the world.”
— John Galt/Alan Greenspan

You all DO know that Alan (a member of Ms. Rand’s inner circle) has destroyed your world?

But is Alan Greenspan really analogous to John Galt?
[/quote]

He thinks he is. His mission was to speed up the self-destruction of the system. We’re witnessing it now, as debts soar into infinity and we totter on the brink of a massive depression.

When it truly hits, we’ll then have to decide if we truly want freedom or complete slavery.

37

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The responses here somewhat match my view that 70% of people are raving morons, while 30% are somewhat rational.

“I will stop the motor of the world.”
— John Galt/Alan Greenspan

You all DO know that Alan (a member of Ms. Rand’s inner circle) has destroyed your world?

But is Alan Greenspan really analogous to John Galt?

He thinks he is. His mission was to speed up the self-destruction of the system. We’re witnessing it now, as debts soar into infinity and we totter on the brink of a massive depression.

When it truly hits, we’ll then have to decide if we truly want freedom or complete slavery.

[/quote]

Didn’t John Galt refuse the position of economic czar? And has Greenspan’s long-term goal really been to promote the cause of freedom?

38

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The responses here somewhat match my view that 70% of people are raving morons, while 30% are somewhat rational.

“I will stop the motor of the world.”
— John Galt/Alan Greenspan

You all DO know that Alan (a member of Ms. Rand’s inner circle) has destroyed your world?

But is Alan Greenspan really analogous to John Galt?

He thinks he is. His mission was to speed up the self-destruction of the system. We’re witnessing it now, as debts soar into infinity and we totter on the brink of a massive depression.

When it truly hits, we’ll then have to decide if we truly want freedom or complete slavery.

Didn’t John Galt refuse the position of economic czar? And has Greenspan’s long-term goal really been to promote the cause of freedom?

[/quote]

Yes, he did. But Francisco D’Anconia stayed within the system. I imagine Greenspan is using a little bit of both.

39

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
I dont agree. I dont give a shit if I make history or not. I will be dead anyway. What, is it that you want your ego to be timeless?

And anyway, no one cares.[/quote]

I find the inate human drive to leave a personal legacy interesting from an evolutionary standpoint.

We seek attractive mates to propagate our DNA. We seek wealth and security to provide for our families and to stand out among competitors. You can explain most human tendencies in Darwinian terms.

What about legacies? Why evolutionary advantage would naming a school’s wing or library after yourself hold? Or a charitable organization, for that matter? One might argue that it would provide your offspring with a favorable, renowned lineage to build upon, but I don’t think so.

I think humans have an urge to live on…to be remembered posthumously…for no other reason than ego. How would Darwinian genetics explain this?

40

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
I dont agree. I dont give a shit if I make history or not. I will be dead anyway. What, is it that you want your ego to be timeless?

And anyway, no one cares.

I find the inate human drive to leave a personal legacy interesting from an evolutionary standpoint.

We seek attractive mates to propagate our DNA. We seek wealth and security to provide for our families and to stand out among competitors. You can explain most human tendencies in Darwinian terms.

What about legacies? Why evolutionary advantage would naming a school’s wing or library after yourself hold? Or a charitable organization, for that matter? One might argue that it would provide your offspring with a favorable, renowned lineage to build upon, but I don’t think so.

I think humans have an urge to live on…to be remembered posthumously…for no other reason than ego. How would Darwinian genetics explain this? [/quote]

Maybe some people want to be remembered, but not me. I dont care If I am remembered or not

I think it doesnt matter at all. The only important thing is the present moment. Also I think ego is a really bad thing. Self-respect is good, but over-inflated ego or self-love is bad.
Do you really enjoy your time when the only thing you do is swim in your own self-love, thinking how cute you are ? I dont think so. I fight this fucked up tendency everyday

A room full of people who think they are the shit and the next guy is not as beautiful, smart, cool or good as them is ugly. It makes me think of that picture where there is two stickmen in 2 different colours thinking with the same cloud separed in their 2 colors ‘‘what a douchebag’’ on howtostopsuckingatlife.com or hownottosuckatlife.com I dont remember