The meaning of life

[Flavus Aquila]

There is no meaning to life, there is no meaning to you or me, there is really no meaning to anything. We invented reason and think everything must have one instead of just accepting the beauty of nature.

That's meaning - the meaning of life is to see beauty.

 

[Duty]

Replace "higher" with "greater", as in the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
All things are parts of a greater whole.
This whole, some may call God.

Greater is still a vague term, I don't get it.

 

[Duty]

I feel that we must attach meaning to purpose because if there is no purpose to something, then there is no meaning - so what's the point of it? Does something have worth if it's meaningless? I don't think so.

But I also think there is far more purpose in the universe than we realize...and therefore, far more meaning in our everyday lives than we can fathom.

Man, I feel like a philosopher this morning.


((And I know Duty's gonna hop on this one like white on rice...))

Neither worth nor purpose are innate properties of the universe. They're subjective thoughts that we, as people, impose on the universe ourselves.

If there was objective meaning in the world, then a baseball bat would ONLY be used to play baseball. That is what its "innate purpose" would be. But it has no innate purpose, and so it may be used for such various things as beating your neighbor's dog in the middle of the night, or more violently and creatively, to hammer in a stake in the ground.

There is no innate purpose to the bat. It only has the purpose that we give it: makeshift hammer, gang warfare tool, or sporting equipment.


So purpose and worth exist, sure, but only as subjective ideas, not as real properties like length or mass.

 

[arbygil]

Heh - okay, let's try it your way.

Just because something is used for what it shouldn't doesn't mean it didn't have innate purpose. The baseball bat was created for a reason: To play baseball. Just because people use it to beat each other senseless doesn't invalidate that created purpose. We gave it purpose by inventing it in the first place and saying it should be used for "X". A shoe could be a weapon, so could a telephone book. But their purposes aren't the same if we choose to use them in the way they were meant to be used.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Whyyyyyy does everything need to be defined?!

Hmmm... I'll answer that when you define "everything."

 

[IndigoSensor]

Hmmm... I'll answer that when you define "everything."

:frusty::doh::rant::tsk:

 

[Duty]

We gave it purpose by inventing it in the first place and saying it should be used for "X".

It sounds like you're agreeing with me. We gave it purpose...the purpose is subjectively dependent on us.

The only further proposition I purposed is there is no innate property of the object called "purpose." Mass is an innate property, as is volume and chemical composition. Purpose is not the same in this. Was this the point you were actually disputing?

 

[Duty]

:doh:

Whyyyyyy does everything need to be defined?!

How can you understand a word, let alone the sentence that contains it, without knowing the definition? Just saying "x is a collective energy source" is vague and does not lend itself to any discussion that isn't also vague and fruitless.

 

[IndigoSensor]

How can you understand a word, let alone the sentence that contains it, without knowing the definition? Just saying "x is a collective energy source" is vague and does not lend itself to any discussion that isn't also vague and fruitless.

but I JUST explained how I see it, I GAVE it a definition. It is what it is, a collective energy source! It isn't vauge. BLARGITY! :frusty:

 

[arbygil]

It sounds like you're agreeing with me. We gave it purpose...the purpose is subjectively dependent on us.

I am, to a point. I think the information you have below is where we veer off:

The only further proposition I purposed is there is no innate property of the object called "purpose." Mass is an innate property, as is volume and chemical composition. Purpose is not the same in this. Was this the point you were actually disputing?

I think when you mentioned this:

Neither worth nor purpose are innate properties of the universe. They're subjective thoughts that we, as people, impose on the universe ourselves

I was concerned that you were implying that nothing had innate purpose. I disagreed with that point. I would further disagree that the universe is meaningless other than the purpose we give it, because we don't control the physical laws of the universe. Gravity has purpose, and we didn't give gravity meaning - we learned why gravity has purpose, but gravity existed whether we gave it meaning or not. But we didn't arbitrarily assign meaning to gravity, either. We had to learn how it preformed and how it functioned - but even before we knew how gravity functioned, it still affected us before we understood everything about it. So:

The only further proposition I purposed is there is no innate property of the object called "purpose." Mass is an innate property, as is volume and chemical composition. Purpose is not the same in this. Was this the point you were actually disputing?

See above. I think the difference is between what we call something, and how it existed before we called it what it was. The object and properties still exist, whether we give them a purpose or not. Mass will not suddenly become light because we decided to call it light.

 

[Duty]

I can't really define it beyond this, cause I really don't have words to describe it. Note, this is what I believe: All thoughts, ideas, and feelings are resonated from each person. They are felt by others, the environment, and everything around them. Some of this is projected into the energy source. A good example is the law of attraction. What you think is what you get (morealess). For example, if a person keeps thinking about icecream. Part of that thought is going to go out into the universe, and to the energy source. Subsequently the universe is going to reflect that idea, and show itself back on this world in either direct, or indirect meanings.

but I JUST explained how I see it, I GAVE it a definition. It is what it is, a collective energy source! It isn't vauge. BLARGITY! :frusty:

See, I don't understand what you're referring to. Your example I don't understand as there is no law of attraction in any science that I'm aware of. You then say that "what you think is what you get," which doesn't seem true...as the vast majority of things I think about I don't get...certainly more I don't get then I do.

Plus, I don't see thoughts and feelings "resonating" from people. Some people display physiological responses to psychological stimuli, but I've never experienced some esoteric "resonance" like you describe. Can you please point me to research about this "resonance" or can you tell me how to detect it?

So, you see, I can't say I quite understand that it is a "collective energy source," because that term, as you describe it, has a lot of concepts I'm not familiar with.

 

[IndigoSensor]

See, I don't understand what you're referring to. Your example I don't understand as there is no law of attraction in any science that I'm aware of. You then say that "what you think is what you get," which doesn't seem true...as the vast majority of things I think about I don't get...certainly more I don't get then I do.

Plus, I don't see thoughts and feelings "resonating" from people. Some people display physiological responses to psychological stimuli, but I've never experienced some esoteric "resonance" like you describe. Can you please point me to research about this "resonance" or can you tell me how to detect it?

So, you see, I can't say I quite understand that it is a "collective energy source," because that term, as you describe it, has a lot of concepts I'm not familiar with.

I am not talking about science, these are concepts I believe. I told you that: Law of Attraction

Because you dont see thoughts and feelings the same way that I do, we have a divergent in opinions. All I was trying to do was convey how I can see a "higher power" which you said you didn't get completly.

 

[Duty]

Gravity has purpose, and we didn't give gravity meaning - we learned why gravity has purpose, but gravity existed whether we gave it meaning or not. But we didn't arbitrarily assign meaning to gravity, either. We had to learn how it preformed and how it functioned - but even before we knew how gravity functioned, it still affected us before we understood everything about it. So:



See above. I think the difference is between what we call something, and how it existed before we called it what it was. The object and properties still exist, whether we give them a purpose or not. Mass will not suddenly become light because we decided to call it light.

Gravity doesn't have "purpose," it just is. It's just an innate property of things that have mass. Gravity can be used for a purpose, but innately it doesn't have it. It doesn't have a purpose of its own as it doesn't have a will...it does not have intelligence.

If gravity has an innate purpose, what is that purpose? Plus, if it has an innate purpose, does that mean it is an objective purpose, and therefore contradicts your belief that there is only subjective purpose?

 

[Duty]

Because you dont see thoughts and feelings the same way that I do, we have a divergent in opinions. All I was trying to do was convey how I can see a "higher power" which you said you didn't get completly.

Special Pleading:

• assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know you think that I should be giving my money to the poor, but you've never been rich before. There are things about wealth that you don't understand.

I'm asking you to teach me how to see these thoughts and feelings in the way that you do. It's very very difficult to understand your point of view if you just say "I see something you don't, but trust me, it's there and everywhere."


Further, the "law" you linked is not a law. Sometimes I get what I'm thinking about, but the vast majority of things that I think about, I don't receive. This is not a law at all since it is not something that happens with predictable consistency nor is it true in the first place.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Special Pleading:

• assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know you think that I should be giving my money to the poor, but you've never been rich before. There are things about wealth that you don't understand.

I'm asking you to teach me how to see these thoughts and feelings in the way that you do. It's very very difficult to understand your point of view if you just say "I see something you don't, but trust me, it's there and everywhere."


Further, the "law" you linked is not a law. Sometimes I get what I'm thinking about, but the vast majority of things that I think about, I don't receive. This is not a law at all since it is not something that happens with predictable consistency nor is it true in the first place.

I'm special pleading? Honestly, I don't give a crap. I already did try to explain it, but you are trying to understand it using logic, which won't work. This is one of those things where you will understand it, or not. I subscribe to this belif, because it gives my life meaning, reason, and understanding. You have your ways of understand. And yes, I am aware it isn't a law. It is just what it is called.

 

[Duty]

I'm special pleading? Honestly, I don't give a crap. I already did try to explain it, but you are trying to understand it using logic, which won't work. This is one of those things where you will understand it, or not.

In propositions about the world, logic always applies. You can't just throw it out when it's not convenient.

I subscribe to this belif, because it gives my life meaning, reason, and understanding.

But your belief is wrong, or at least you don't have any proof to justify it. It's confusing to me how anyone could "just believe" something like this...it seems to be a complete breach of integrity to me. I'm honestly baffled...

 

[IndigoSensor]

In propositions about the world, logic always applies. You can't just throw it out when it's not convenient.

No, it does not. I have said this a gazillion times before. Logic isn't the answer to everything. Most people would agree; I am not just saying this.

But your belief is wrong, or at least you don't have any proof to justify it. It's confusing to me how anyone could "just believe" something like this...it seems to be a complete breach of integrity to me. I'm honestly baffled...

Don't you dare say my beleif is wrong. I may not have any proof to justify it to you, but you can't prove it doen't work either.

I am not just basising by belifs in this for the sake of, I have had so much life experience that has proven to me that everything I believe does exsist. This is internal proof and conformation for me. Of course, these won't live up to your standards.

 

[Duty]

No, it does not. I have said this a gazillion times before. Logic isn't the answer to everything. Most people would agree; I am not just saying this.

In propositions about the world, logic always applies.

Don't you dare say my beleif is wrong. I may not have any proof to justify it to you, but you can't prove it doen't work either.

I am not just basising by belifs in this for the sake of, I have had so much life experience that has proven to me that everything I believe does exsist. This is internal proof and conformation for me. Of course, these won't live up to your standards.

Then your belief is unjustified, and therefore holding it is incorrect. It's a spit in the face of reason to hold an unjustified belief.

 

[arbygil]

Gravity doesn't have "purpose," it just is. It's just an innate property of things that have mass. Gravity can be used for a purpose, but innately it doesn't have it. It doesn't have a purpose of its own as it doesn't have a will...it does not have intelligence.

Gravity doesn't have a will or intelligence, but it does serve a purpose - and I would propose that serving a purpose is a purpose in itself (semantics? Maybe). We have to have gravity. We have theories of what would happen without it (we'd fly into space, etc) but it serves a purpose so I would say it has a purpose. It's purpose is to do what it's supposed to do. It can't change itself to do something else - like you said, it doesn't have will. But it exists for a reason. And that reason, IMO, is purpose. Perhaps it's how we identify our words in the examples. I think we *could* break things down between having a purpose and serving a purpose, but I see these things as synonymous. One is for sentient creatures, the other is for items without a will.

If gravity has an innate purpose, what is that purpose? Plus, if it has an innate purpose, does that mean it is an objective purpose, and therefore contradicts your belief that there is only subjective purpose?

No, I don't feel I'm contradicting myself (and I didn't use the term subjective purpose). I believe things exist for a reason/purpose, and such things also include things which do not have a will.

 

[IndigoSensor]

In propositions about the world, logic always applies.

This isnt about the world, it is about the spiritual realm.

Then your belief is unjustified, and therefore holding it is incorrect. It's a spit in the face of reason to hold an unjustified belief.

IT IS NOT F****** INCORRECT. I FOLLOW MY OWN STANDARDS AND MY OWN REASONS. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO DEFINE WHAT I F****** BELIEVE IN.