The Meaning of Life? (Really)

Well, I should say that I don't just take my view of life based on what my church says. I mean that I interpret everything in light of the view of the universe, and God, and mankind, that derives from my faith. But the answers I get are sometimes unique to me, and I do try to be philosophical about things.
 
Phlegmak said:
There is no meaning of life.

Your life is what you choose to make of it. Nothing else.

The bolded, IS the meaning of life. Life defines itself. The reason man constantly is hounded by this question is because we define our lives. Every day you must define it through your actions. So, naturally you are constantly asking yourself the meaning so that you can act accordingly. You are in a way brainstorming what life means to you.

Also, life exists so therefore it means existance has self-awareness. If you spin the question into why is there life. (What does life mean?) It means existance has self awareness and naturally it will try to define itself.

I am not saying life has no meaning though. But the meaning to life is to define itself. You do this everyday. It comes naturally to you. You can't see the forest for the trees.
 
Low Tier Hero said:
Meaning? None.

This grants you the freedom to define your own meaning to your own existance.
Much like how a diagnosis of a terminal illness in a way grants you more freedom, knowing your going to die.

Once you loose the chain of thinking that things have meaning beyond objective meaning, life opens up before you =)
Welcome to OT LTH.

Yes, because we experience ourselves as separate and distinct entities we tend to focus on individual wants and needs as most important. Change your experience and you will change your definition of what is important.
 
K, another question would be why is it that it seems that most people, long ago, all over the world, since ancient times, created the idea of god and gods to explain things? Are our genes programmed to make our thoughts irrational, or are thoughts independent from our biology? It comes from observation right, but why do you think early men formed the idea of higher beings or the supernatural instead of being able to comprehend the natural? I mean the world is visible and here, but god is not, so where did this idea come from? And weirder still is that most people accept it. Which makes me wonder why does most people accept something that is irrational, especially biologically.

And on a slightly different matter:

Now recently at my school one of our professors of philosophy studies came up with a weird metaphor in the shape of a model on the blackboard that went like this: There is a box, and in that box there is: moth eggs and a protected light bulb. In that box there is a cycle, and it goes like this, the eggs hatch, moths fly around the box and enjoy the light but dont get toasted because its protected, lay more eggs, and then die. they can never leave the box but they know they are in a box. and there are drawings of butterflies inside the box. when the moths die they think they are going to turn into butterflies and so that gives them purpose in that box. eventually turning into a butterfly when they die.

the light represented what the moths enjoyed in the box, it was something they liked to look at. however when they died there will be no more light, but they will be butterflies.

and then he asked us who thought that there was nothing more when we died. Half of us raised our hands. and so he said that viewpoint is like taking away the butterflies for the moths. yes when they hatch they will get to look at the light, which represents everything in life we live for and love, or go after, desire, whatever, anything earthly, but after we die that is gone and the moth will be no more so did it really matter that it got to look at the light while it was alive? Is it enough just to look at the light and keep laying eggs so other moths could look at the light when in the end, though there might be no end, it leads to nothing? its a cycle in vain? and what if a moth realized it would not turn into a butterfly, that it was all for nothing. would it just lay down and die and not lay eggs? is that why most people believe or want to belive in God or something other than this life and beyond this world? because it keeps us going?

or will the moth choose to just stare at the light then since it wont turn into a butterfly and not bother to waste time not looking at the light and lay some eggs? is that what happens when some people realize there is no purpose and just waste away or live their life in great luxury with no care for anyone else?

or do you think that we people, within that metaphor, can ultimately stop believing in butterflies and learn to live just to look at the light and lay eggs so that future generations can look at the light for no reason. Is it enough, objectively, to live just to lay eggs and while at it look at the light and then thats it?

Our proffesor said that most people will always hold onto the butterfly. My question is why? why does our biology require most of us to create this 'hope' instead of allowing us to not need this hope and still be able to perpetuate the species?

If at all you read this far without being confused and being able to actually get what I was trying to say then I look forward to your replies!
 
Belief in a higher power is part of out genetic make up(scientists have shown we seem to be programmed to some extent to feel there is a higher power, some are more powerfully motivated by this instinct than others who feel it not at all) It was advantageous to have an understanding of the world that unified people gave them purpose and insight without true insight, in short it made us fitter beings in evolution, philosophy has always sought to embrace understanding but to question tennants beyond the remit of strictly adhered to faith. Now adays we have such greater scope beyond the box in which we lived for ages, we can if we try hard enough to, find wisdom, devoid ourselves from mortal concerns of state and religious dogma but it means you have to remove yourself from the chains that bar you in the cave in which you dwell, to answer questions of your being, you cannot live in the dark, at some point you have to see the sun, but only by living in a cave and understanding our mortal drives can we truly apreciate wisdom when it comes. Try gogling the allegory of the cave proposed by Socrates, it takes the box idea and flattens it. As I said before we have too much knowledge at our desposal to blind ourselves by living in a cave and seeing objects only as shadows, at some point if you want to evolve and understand you have to free your mind from constraint. Otherwise you are merely living in a box dreaming of butterflies.
 
Sidhe said:
at some point if you want to evolve and understand you have to free your mind from constraint. Otherwise you are merely living in a box dreaming of butterflies.
Yes, and the most restrictive constraint on us is the scientific method. :p
 
Birdjaguar said:
Yes, and the most restrictive constraint on us is the scientific method. :p

Only if you follow it as a "religion" it is selectively suicidal in its beliefs, it evolves quickly and ever seeks to prove itself wrong, which is more than you can say of pure religion, scientific method is but one tool in the box of understanding. more analytical more reliable for questions of how we are here, but not really a good tool for pulling out the screws of why, you always lose a screw, damn those things seem to have a will of their own :)
 
I didn't say it wasn't useful, just constraining. :)
 
I think he is saying. "Use google."
 
Here is a piece from wiki:

On Wittgenstein's account, language provides a way of coping with, what one might call, "everyday purposes," and it works well within that context. But when everyday language attempts to explain something beyond what it is able, problems arise. At root, this is what is known as the say/show distinction: that which can be said can also be shown, but there is that which can only be shown, not said. In other words, that which can only be shown "we must pass over in silence." To illustrate this point, consider the difference between sense and nonsense. If someone says, for instance, "There is a difference between sense and nonsense," one readily understands what this means. However, if someone did not understand the difference, it would certainly be impossible to explain it. Hence, the difference between sense and nonsense can be shown in statements, but this showing cannot be said (explained) in any meaningful way and therefore remains in silence. Put another way, the say/show distinction shows that while we can meaningfully discuss our experience, we cannot meaningfully discuss those things upon which our experience of the world depends. Thus, if someone on the street were to ask another "What time is it?" there can be a straightforward and meaningful answer. However, if the same person goes on to ask, "Well then what is time?" the situation would be quite different (for how could you meaningfully explain time without appealing to the very concept?). Thus, questions such as "What is time?" and "What is the difference between sense and nonsense?" are nonsensical questions for Wittgenstein. This does not mean that they should not be asked or that they are bad questions, but that their answers can only be shown. These answers, then, will be descriptive rather than explicatory.

Wittgenstein's new philosophical methodology involved continually reminding his readers of certain aspects of linguistic usage that had been forgotten in the search for metaphysical truths. In general, the point is that if it is left alone, language functions unproblematically; it does not stand in need of correction by philosophers. In this manner, he aimed to demonstrate that the great questions posed by philosophers had arisen because they were operating on a mistaken view of language and its relation to reality. Philosophers in the Western tradition were not "wiser" than anyone else, as had been assumed — they were simply more likely to get caught up in linguistic confusion by taking language beyond the context it was meant to deal with. For Wittgenstein, the philosopher's proper task is therefore to "show the fly out of the fly bottle": to show that the problems with which philosophers torment themselves are not really problems at all, but rather examples of "language gone on holiday" (as he put it). The philosopher is to clear up confusion, but not by crafting philosophical theses.

The bolded part is an excellent piece of thinking. I guess this is why TLC doesn't join in all the religio-philosophical discussions. ;)
 
Life's purpose is for each to make
Or when confused, just to fake;
What is not proven cannot be;
What is important is called "me."

Behind the veil of creation's light
Is that which calls for other sight
 
Perfection said:
I've long stopped trying to make sense of Birdjaguar's philosophy. I just get real stoned every saturday night, use the search function to find his OT posts and just read!

I respect Birdjaguar because he was at Woodstock. Seriously!
 
:blush:
jonatas said:
I respect Birdjaguar because he was at Woodstock. Seriously!
:blush:
 
Yeah but he was there last week! j/k;)


Meaning of Life:

Its the ultimate reality show.
 
Birdjaguar said:
Why must it involve complex internal processing?
'Cause it needs to think! Rocks ain't concious! :smug:

Birdjaguar said:
Yes, and the most restrictive constraint on us is the scientific method. :p
Because if science didn't exist gravity could go every which way!
bong.gif


warpus said:
There is none.

You make your own purpose.
I direct you to this post:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4250259&postcount=36
 
Life is a dream that knows no shade.
Life is a dream of pain and woe
A dream from which we pray to wake
a dream from which we wake and go.
Who would sleep when the new dawn waits?
Who would sleep while the sweet winds blow?
All dreams must end when the new day comes
this dream from which we wake and go.

Gods of War I call You, my sword is by my side.
I seek a life of honour, free from all false pride.
I will crack the whip with a bold mighty Hail.
Cover me with death if I should ever fail.
Glory, Majesty, Unity - Hail, Hail, Hail



That, and to be a righteous man, do good for your people, be a good servant and solider of God, and to live with honour, pride and loyalty.
 
Prince_Imrahil said:
K, another question would be why is it that it seems that most people, long ago, all over the world, since ancient times, created the idea of god and gods to explain things?
Most of us have said that life is what you make of it. However, this requires that you have the strength/courage/will/etc. to define your own purpose (and probablly morality as well). Many people simply do not have this, or are too lazy to take the time to decide their purpose. It is much easier to invoke a higher power who created us for a purpose. It is also easier to take an already established moral code rather than making one yourself. Most organized religions include both of these features, preventing people from having to grapple with these questions.
 
Back
Top Bottom