The Purpose of Life

Off Topic
61

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:

triple-10sets wrote:
For all the people who say the purpose of live is to reproduce, does that mean a man or woman who doesnt have kids has a life with no purpose ?

Reproduction may not be in the name of physical children, it may be an abstract concept, or a lasting monument, or empite that carries on. That can be percieved at something you foster, grow, and care for. In essence it could be the “child” some of the greatest people lack.[/quote]

It could be viewed as leaving your mark behind on the world, not necessarily children

62

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:

triple-10sets wrote:
For all the people who say the purpose of live is to reproduce, does that mean a man or woman who doesnt have kids has a life with no purpose ?

Reproduction may not be in the name of physical children, it may be an abstract concept, or a lasting monument, or empite that carries on. That can be percieved at something you foster, grow, and care for. In essence it could be the “child” some of the greatest people lack.

It could be viewed as leaving your mark behind on the world, not necessarily children[/quote]

And yet you have to look at it as the care, nurtering, defence, growth and other things that can be applicable to a, abstract concept or physical manifestation, or a child.

63

[quote]miroku333 wrote:

I would also love to just let loose a fireball here and suggest that:
all this talk of life is an accident, the purpose of life is to reproduce, we should just have fun and be happy, etc.
All of these are ideas from a morally bankrupt, hedonistic generation that wants to accept no responsibility for its actions.
:p[/quote]

Fair enough statement, but lets face it, it’s the generation before us that is handing out all the bail-outs. We’ve inherited our moral bankruptcy from the best.

64

To shut up and lift.

No,but seriously,the purpose of life…

is to enjoy it.

65

[quote]Ace Rimmer wrote:
To shut up and lift.

No,but seriously,the purpose of life…

is to enjoy it.

[/quote]

which is actually the conclusion of my first post…

66

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
Vegita wrote:

I also have a theory about god, but i’m not sure thats the way you wanted the question answered.

V

I’d love to hear it[/quote]

x2

67

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Anyone who ever reads Nietzsche (really reads, not browses) will ever be the same again.[/quote]

Absolute statements like these are idiotic, HH. Nietzsche is the opiate of intellectual dick-pullers.

68

[quote]Vegita wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
your purpose in life = to reproduce.

if you look at everything biologically thats what it all boils down to.

Biologically speaking, this statement is true. The sole purpose of life, or the theory goes, is to pass on your genes to future members of the species. There has to be something encoded in DNA that makes competition a primary survival need, because even with abundant life resources, life still will compete.

Now here is where the differentiation comes between humans and all other living creatures. All other creatures have built in population controls. If they overconsume thier resources, they will starve and be whittled down to only the strongest specimens. Then the overburdened resource will bounce back due to the lack of the consumers, and the cycle will continue, each boom and bust making that population hardier, and better adept at survival.

Humans, have no natural enemies. Our population will collapse only when our planet can no longer provide what we need (that is if we fail to find it somewhere else first).
Also we have the distinct ability that no other living being on earth has had. To destroy out entire planet and all human life. A wolf doesn’t have to worry about morals, it only has to worry about pack structure and getting as much food and as much ass as it can possibly get. Humans, with thier collective ability to wreak mass destruction need morals. Especially when it pertains to governments (were there is surprisingly little to no morals present). The problem with morals and humans is that people in general have overcome the in grained DNA coding like procreating, the good of the pack or tribe, the good of thier offspring to further thier legacy. Many humans still have these instincts, but many simply do not have them.

I’m kinda running in circles now (working and typing intermittenly) hopefully my ideas are coming through clear to at least someone.

V
[/quote]

I disagree. humans have plenty of natural enemies. anything that can eat us will eat us. difference is we located ourselves amongst ourselves, we have communities that keep our natural predators out.

i agree that in our quest for technology and life improvement we make things worse off…thats a whole 'nother topic though.

government makes no sense to me. as of late ive really been wondering, how is it that we’ve developed societys where the morals are counterintuitive from our natural instincts. i mean you look at people like the Puritans, how did they make a society where your job was to work 6 days a week and on the 7th you went to church ALL day? thats not human nature at all, humans need balance, you do nothing all day and you feel useless and bored, you do nothing but work and you feel like your missing out on fun, i think you need both, you cant appreciate one without the other.

69

Existence precedes essence

70

Winning is the meaning of life.

71

[quote]dza1978 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dza1978 wrote:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz philosophy 101 is now in session zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yeah, please feel free to not join the discussion since you haven’t anything to add.

since einstein never solved this puzzle and stephen hawkings at the same point what makes you think your gonna have any impact on humanity by spueing out something when it will never be definative.

life is life may be you should get one rather than spending your waking hours with the other philosophers with all their “insight” letting it pass you bye.
[/quote]

Reading “philosophy” has greatly increased my ability to achieve and evaluate happiness in life. And you should learn to punctuate and learn compound words, it would increase your ability to prove your point.

72

The purpose of life is to end all life by dividing by zero.

73

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The purpose of life is to end all life by dividing by zero.[/quote]

Did you get into my stash of Purple Sticky?

74

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
elano wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
elano wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
There doesn’t have to be a REASON for anything. It is what it is. Although sometimes what it is, is what it ain’t.

And how do you know this? There may be some behind the scenes action that we have no comprehension of.

The Laws of Physics can 'splain what Monty Python cannot.
There’s plenty of behind the scenes action, and a mathmatical equation that illustrates it’s proof.

And besides, why is it important to know the meaning of life, anyway? Why do human beings think the earth is the center of the Universe? What is it that fills us with self-importance? And who wrote the Book of Love?
I wonder.

The laws of physics may not be the only controlling forces in the universe. Life might be evolving all over the place too. The universe may be dynamic and could be changed like a programmer changes a script. I just don’t fall for the “it is what it is” approach to the universe. Somebody or something created it and most likely for a reason. That is what we are trying to understand and I can see why. That is why Einstein spent so much time trying to figure out his string theory.

As far as I’m aware,String theory originated in the late 60’s or early 70’s.That would rule out Einstein.What Einstein was trying to achieve was a Unified Theory.[/quote]

In the most general sense all attempts at modern day physics is to unify the four fundamental forces, gravity, EM, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear.

String theory is also an attempt to unify the fundamental forces. Most physicists believe that if unification theory is correct then all the forces should be analogs of each other at different points in the “space-time continuum”.

The problem is that Einstein’s relativity does not fit with the quantum world though we can in fact observe it and correlate it to such phenomenon as lensing, etc. In fact, he was not working with any knowledge of the “quantum universe” though his work on EM helped other physicists develop it. He even rejected the notion of quantum mechanics becaue he could not accept that the world is random – or rather, in his words, “God does not play dice.” Later on before he died he said he might have been wrong.

75

[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anyone who ever reads Nietzsche (really reads, not browses) will ever be the same again.

Absolute statements like these are idiotic, HH. Nietzsche is the opiate of intellectual dick-pullers.

[/quote]

Nice! If you don’t mind, I’m going to steal that one! Judging by this and your comment about Sartre, I’m guessing you don’t buy into the whole existential paradigm?

In any case, I do think there’s merit in the idea that, for the individual, life only has meaning when one decides to give it meaning. Maybe that’s the whole point. Whether you decide the meaning of life is about relationships, getting laid, finding god, or just having a good time, the point is it means whatever you decide it means. Makes sense to me anyways.

76

If existence does not precede essence then we are forced to ask where essence comes from. For example, does God provide it to us?

If Sartre is correct then essence is dictated by our existence and is essentially (sic) a question of what individuals value. It is a question for axiology to answer. What is the good?

It could be your “purpose” is just to figure out what you value.

77

This thread needs more Arendtians

78

[quote]DickBag wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
A person is NEVER as important or significant as they think they are.

The purpose of life is to make more life. Plain and simple. If you want to know the meaning of life, watch Monty Python.

'splains everything in the movie.

Thread like these piss me off greatly. Not because of the discussion, no.

But because of raw blunt statements as if they are facts.

Do you understand why your here? No you dont.

You dont know whats going on, Steven Hawking doesn’t even know whats going on. einstein died not knowing being able to figure out a theory linking magentism, gravity and all other forces together.

Arrogance makes people say this and that. it always has. i do it from time to time as well.

But for fuck sake, shut up with the " we are here because of bla bla bla."

No one knows what the fuck is going on.

If we exist to reporduce, then what is the point? Why would nature create beings that would damage nature?

What use are humans to the world? we mess the place up, we caused accelerated global warming, 200 species a day are going extinct, we are speeding up desertification, we are a pack of messy shits. This leads me to the fact that we have no fuckin idea why we are here, why nature needs us.

Why would mother nature create a species that has the ability to evolve and screw everything up

who knows.

fact is, i havent a fuckin clue whats goin on.

i think its funny how people readily believe in the big bang theory as well as if its some ordinary believable thing. There are physical things in life that are just wierd and crazy to believe, they make absolutly no sense, eg. the speed of light, how light can travel faster than light, how no matter how fast you go relative to light, it will allways be 3*10^8 m/s faster what was before the big bang, is there an edge in space,why does the electron act like a wave and a particle, why does it pick a slit when approaching two slits at once, bla bla bla.

lots of nearly unbelievable stuff readily believed by negative people but the same people will act like god doesnt exist, as if its a fairy tale, as if they actually know what they are talking about. i would nearly leave these people be, if they studied theretical physics and were more educated, but most of these people are just discovery channel geeks who like to think they are one step ahead of normal “gullable” humans who don’t need to know theres a higher power.

conclusion, who fuckin knows. keep the mouth quiet and dont make statements on what you dont know. discuss yes, but dont start stating.

its very annoying, not to mention disrespectfull.

its actually nearly offensive. alot of poeple are brought up a certain way, then they have to listen to things that shake their foundations.
[/quote]

practice what you preach.

79

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

practice what you preach.
[/quote]

X2

80

[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anyone who ever reads Nietzsche (really reads, not browses) will ever be the same again.

Absolute statements like these are idiotic, HH. Nietzsche is the opiate of intellectual dick-pullers.

Nice! If you don’t mind, I’m going to steal that one! Judging by this and your comment about Sartre, I’m guessing you don’t buy into the whole existential paradigm?

In any case, I do think there’s merit in the idea that, for the individual, life only has meaning when one decides to give it meaning. Maybe that’s the whole point. Whether you decide the meaning of life is about relationships, getting laid, finding god, or just having a good time, the point is it means whatever you decide it means. Makes sense to me anyways.
[/quote]

Actually, I’d describe myself as an existentialist. Unfortunately, existential writers tend to go a bit too far with their supplementary ideas. Not to mention they’re preachy as hell. A true existentialist would acknowledge that they could in fact be completely wrong, while guys like Nietzsche and Sartre are a bit too narcissistic for that. Camus was the most down-to-earth, in my opinion.

I’m not big on bigger-picture philosophy anyway. It’s not practical and amounts to pretentious bullshit. I like guys like Gracian, Epictetus, Machiavelli–stuff you can use in your life, rather than empty words that make you feel superior to other people.

Personally, I find the idea of a meaning or purpose of existence to be quite silly. Why does there have to be a meaning?

I’m also an absurdist.