The Purpose of Life

[John K]

What I want to do here is identify different approaches to the subject of human purpose. I've thought a lot about this and I wouldn't even call myself an Existentialist anymore. I don't think that you create your own purpose. I think it's given by the prime-mover, the prime-cause, what have you.

As far as I can see, the question cannot be addressed unless it's given a context, and the approach to exploring an answer will be different according to that context. From a domestic cat's point of view human purpose is food, shelter, companionship - but cats appear to be incapable of conceptualising these things, so they just manifest this rather than express it.

I wonder, is purpose an artifice of human psychology, or is it something intrinsic to the world in which we find ourselves? Is human purpose something given from without, and independent of our existence, or is it something we invent for ourselves? If it comes from a creator, or from as yet unknown laws of nature, then our most fundamental purpose is a matter of discovery and revelation; if we invent it for ourselves than it's a matter of inspiration, ingenuity, experiment, dialectic - conflict even - and most likely there is a Darwinian process that determines what evolves and is accepted at any one time.

Personally, I find the idea of purpose being given, not invented, as far more interesting than the alternative. With it comes the question of whether existence has a purpose independently of human beings and whether this is true at every time and every scale of the world's being. I prefer to find my own purpose as a sequence of notes within a grand symphony of creation, a unity of everything that there is, rather than as a brief burst of arbitrary static within a dark swamp or eaons old universal meaninglessness. It's not just wishful thinking, because my intuition burns with a fierce 'rightness' on this - but that's not to say it's true, just that it feels far more likely to be true.

 

[ordz404]

Hmm...here we go again. Down the rabbit hole. Purpose... what of it that some people become possessed by it. Or consumed by purpose.
Purpose is best obtained, rather than given... i feel. Purpose is a very strong motivational and driving force to which can fuel the passage on time on this darn rock.

Perhaps an unobtainable purpose, while ironic, drives people to live life to the fullest. Purpose can be such an encompassing goal. We've seen it in movies... a man driven by revenge so seek out his family's murderers.
Others have chosen world domination as their purpose. But be careful, for purpose can consume you. Driven by revenge or ambition, clouds all sense of logic, we sell our souls to the devil, make compromises, get into abusive relationships... just so that we can get closer to obtaining that "Purpose" or "raison d'être". To obtain revenge, one becomes a demon to fight a demon... but forgets at that point he/she has lost their humanity.

We can obviously go the other way, and live life without purpose... and become a shell with no meaning and existence. Neither seems to be the answer at least for me.
Ultimately... purpose is still limited by the time we have on this earth - the brevity of life.

There is an asian saying .. " transience of things, and both a transient gentle sadness (or wistfulness) at their passing as well as a longer, deeper gentle sadness about this state being the reality of life. "Mono-no aware: the ephemeral nature of beauty – the quietly elated, bittersweet feeling of having been witness to the dazzling circus of life – knowing that none of it can last. It’s basically about being both saddened by and appreciative of transience – and also about the relationship between life and death." - From wiki.

Because we know that life is limited, and understand the impermanence of things, we have greater appreciation for that. Which is better? A short life with purpose... or immortality without any purpose.
Alright, someone please throw me a rope for me to get out of this rabbit hole...

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

*throws ords a rope* here you go love.

Perhaps an unobtainable purpose, while ironic, drives people to live life to the fullest.

This is my modus operandi. We'll never reach the stars if we aim lower, and I'd be remiss selling myself short. If I could live forever I absolutely would, I don't feel it would reduce my goals in the least.
Would you, ordz? live forever if you could?

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

As far as I can see, the question cannot be addressed unless it's given a context, and the approach to exploring an answer will be different according to that context. From a domestic cat's point of view human purpose is food, shelter, companionship - but cats appear to be incapable of conceptualising these things, so they just manifest this rather than express it.

I wonder, is purpose an artifice of human psychology, or is it something intrinsic to the world in which we find ourselves? Is human purpose something given from without, and independent of our existence, or is it something we invent for ourselves? If it comes from a creator, or from as yet unknown laws of nature, then our most fundamental purpose is a matter of discovery and revelation; if we invent it for ourselves than it's a matter of inspiration, ingenuity, experiment, dialectic - conflict even - and most likely there is a Darwinian process that determines what evolves and is accepted at any one time.

Personally, I find the idea of purpose being given, not invented, as far more interesting than the alternative. With it comes the question of whether existence has a purpose independently of human beings and whether this is true at every time and every scale of the world's being. I prefer to find my own purpose as a sequence of notes within a grand symphony of creation, a unity of everything that there is, rather than as a brief burst of arbitrary static within a dark swamp or eaons old universal meaninglessness. It's not just wishful thinking, because my intuition burns with a fierce 'rightness' on this - but that's not to say it's true, just that it feels far more likely to be true.

I like the musical analogy. If one is to recognize any particular motif or theme in the composition, they have to actively listen to it; in other words, they must become an agent of life to see how it makes sense. When you languish inside your own head and try to construct your own purpose, it's kinda like a beginner musician trying to put together a pleasant sounding 12 tone serialism piece, or someone who isn't used to dissonance listening to the notorious level 7 jazz harmony.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

*throws ords a rope* here you go love.


This is my modus operandi. We'll never reach the stars if we aim lower, and I'd be remiss selling myself short. If I could live forever I absolutely would, I don't feel it would reduce my goals in the least.
Would you, ordz? live forever if you could?

When you say live forever, do you mean having immunity to disease and natural entropy, or actual indestructibility? I don't think most people grasp the ramifications of "forever" in the latter case.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

When you say live forever, do you mean having immunity to disease and natural entropy, or actual indestructibility? I don't think most people grasp the ramifications of "forever" in the latter case.

The former. I've not much use existing past the Stelliferous Era.

 

[ordz404]

*throws ords a rope* here you go love.


This is my modus operandi. We'll never reach the stars if we aim lower, and I'd be remiss selling myself short. If I could live forever I absolutely would, I don't feel it would reduce my goals in the least.
Would you, ordz? live forever if you could?

Well there is an interesting question in for me unfortunately the answer is very dependent on my present reference to and how I feel about the world and so in that context.

if I were to deal with an ageing body I’d rather die than live forever but if I have the choice of immortality without the repercussions of ageing I don’t know I might want to live longer let’s say for a few hundred years and be done with it.

well given that my purpose in life might take a few hundred years to accomplish I don’t know I might but then again I’m at a point where I’ve kind of lost hope In greater humanity so I don’t think I want to live longer well that is just me at this point in time in life.

The truth of the matter is that the longer you live use you more opportunity to experience heartbreaks and disappointments and maybe if I lived too long I actually might wanna destroy the world. I find that humans are such fickle creatures and I think the fear for myself would be if I actually let the darkness take over me I might actually become the person who wants to destroy the world.

And thank you very much for the rope I need to get out of this rabbit hole ha ha.

 

[John K]

When you languish inside your own head and try to construct your own purpose, it's kinda like a beginner musician trying to put together a pleasant sounding 12 tone serialism piece, or someone who isn't used to dissonance listening to the notorious level 7 jazz harmony.

An excellent build on the analogy. I haven't got to grips with the analysis of how different sorts of music are actually constructed, but I think listening to many different genres stretches us and keep our minds and spirits supple. Some of the world's great music comes from the Middle East. It takes a while with roots in Western tonal and rhythmic systems for the ear to adjust, but it's worth the effort. Purpose is like that - we become closed in on what we know, and only see the world through the eyes of this limited horizon. There are many more tunes in the universe than the ones expressed in familiar terms.

This is pretty amazing, and has a similar stretch impact as extreme jazz when first heard

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

An excellent build on the analogy. I haven't got to grips with the analysis of how different sorts of music are actually constructed, but I think listening to many different genres stretches us and keep our minds and spirits supple. Some of the world's great music comes from the Middle East. It takes a while with roots in Western tonal and rhythmic systems for the ear to adjust, but it's worth the effort. Purpose is like that - we become closed in on what we know, and only see the world through the eyes of this limited horizon. There are many more tunes in the universe than the ones expressed in familiar terms.

This is pretty amazing, and has a similar stretch impact as extreme jazz when first heard

Good choice. Double harmonic, which is basically the Arabic scale is actually my favourite because of how it makes irregular intervalic movements, which is very thematic to Middle Eastern music. What I meant is still closer to microtonal music, which is generally described as "alien". Funny thing is, familiarity dictates that Western music as most people know it is harmonious, but is actually mathematically more dissonant than microtonal because of the impure ratios between chord intervals. If I was to play a microtonal piece that makes heavy use of its flexibility, it would sound almost random in comparison. But randomness in this sense doesn't quite exist - it's only the difficulty of conceptualization, caused by a lack of close reference points by which a structure could be extrapolated.

I found a brilliant video where some dude harmonized a microtonal scale to speech. The best part is that you can hear a certain island of order rising among the sea of chaos in it when he sings. So to continue this ridiculous abstraction - if I was to uncover meaning in your symphony of creation, I would have to learn how to sing.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

You are born to die. Or even more specifically, the purpose of living is to suffer and die(and maybe continue/perpetuate suffering by having offspring who will also die). There.

 

[Quiet]

You are born to die. Or even more specifically, the purpose of living is to suffer and die(and maybe continue/perpetuate suffering by having offspring who will also die). There.

This is always there. Undeniable truth.

Believing this alone can itself can give purpose as well as urgency

When i was younger I never wanted to have children. I used to think of such people as 'breeders'. I couldnt understand how people could deny the suffering in this world and choose to bring new life in when so many souls were languishing. Thinking about the people in this world, the children that way were, the inescapable suffering is what kept me up at night. It was too much. I wanted in a strong way to destroy the world. In time i chose to do what i could to make the world a better place while i could. I didnt know how but i volunteered, got involved heavily in my community, politics, researched new ways of living, learnt about culture and people, science and technology etc.

I used to live by this:


I got lost in that world and eventually i realised that politics was useless if i couldn't understand how to build a good home first. Or relationships in general. Or a secure person. Everyone is plagued by these issues...if the people governing the country cannot have peace in their own home and heart how can they ever think to create it by implementing policy. Policy so often fails because it doesn't take into account our human condition and the nature of human relationship.

Eventually I had a child. It was unplanned. It scared the shit out of me....the responsibility, the gravity of bringing a soul into this world.
It became essential to do everything i could to ensure she has a good life or my definition of it. To achieve this, it is paramount that everything around her is good, her physical, social, emotional environment. Clean air, clean water, clean food, access to resources, mobility, shelter, community, freedom etc. All thesethings rely on everything else and everyone else. To care for my child i have to care for the earth and everyone in it and everything in it. We are made of the world. We are completely interconnected and dependant on our environment. I breathe in and i breathe the world in. I breath out and breathe the world out.

The world is what it. I will do everything in my power to ensure that when i die, my child will be safe and well. And the only way to do that is to give a fuck about everything.
If i died today, she would be ok and would find her way....i know it. The thing is i can't know or control anything with certainty. In trying to shelter my child i caused her unimaginable pain.
We live we learn, we suffer, we become weathered by life. Life hurts and denying this is wrong. I will never be able to protect my child from all pain and suffering and I won't try. I don't know if i want to either. Pain is part of the human condition. I will try to build the moments of joy and connection instead.
In the end i can only try my best and trust in humanity and nature. And the power that created me.
Whether anything i do matters or not is irrelevant to me. The meaning that gives my life joy is mine. I share this world but i live in my own. I wouldn't trade my world for anyone elses. I believe in people and in miracles

I voted this song as the best of the decade:

 

[Pin]

This thread has gotten a hell of a lot cooler than I originally intended, thank you all.

 

[Quiet]

This thread has gotten a hell of a lot cooler than I originally intended, thank you all.

I'm look forward to your post
I liked the intro

 

[John K]

Good choice. Double harmonic, which is basically the Arabic scale is actually my favourite because of how it makes irregular intervalic movements, which is very thematic to Middle Eastern music. What I meant is still closer to microtonal music, which is generally described as "alien". Funny thing is, familiarity dictates that Western music as most people know it is harmonious, but is actually mathematically more dissonant than microtonal because of the impure ratios between chord intervals. If I was to play a microtonal piece that makes heavy use of its flexibility, it would sound almost random in comparison. But randomness in this sense doesn't quite exist - it's only the difficulty of conceptualization, caused by a lack of close reference points by which a structure could be extrapolated.

I found a brilliant video where some dude harmonized a microtonal scale to speech. The best part is that you can hear a certain island of order rising among the sea of chaos in it when he sings. So to continue this ridiculous abstraction - if I was to uncover meaning in your symphony of creation, I would have to learn how to sing.

Fascinating! Of course the symphony is not the music we express but the music that we are.

There's a cross-over - these two tracks are both naturally occurring processes that have been turned into sound. The first one, a recording of electromagnetic radiation from Saturn, has few discrete notes which is closer to real life than human music. The second, a recording of an earthquake, is a more humanised transposition - I ran a seismometer array in my youth that recorded the most amazing sounds when played through a loudspeaker.

What has this got to do with purpose ... everything, I think! Purpose in terms of the world we find ourselves in, not the limited purpose we project onto it.

 

[Ren]

Just a few preliminary observations.

Aristotle basically thought that there are vices and virtues. A person can't be virtuous all of the time so he saw ethical conduct as a sliding scale. Basically, the most practical way is the middle way or the golden mean.

Why do you call this "the most practical way?" To my mind the golden mean is an ideal, not really anything practical. If a person was able to remain constantly within the golden mean they would be a model of perfect virtue by Aristotle's standards. Just to be clear, the golden mean is not a middle point between virtue and vice, but a virtue point between two symmetrically opposite vices, e.g.:

- Courage as between Cowardice and Recklessness
- Proper Pride between Undue Humility and Empty Vanity
- etc.

So the cultivation of virtue is in a sense the striving towards a perfectly balanced life. To live well by doing things well—Eudaimonia.

I think that purpose (Eudaimonia) is a byproduct of who you are. Your experiences and genes made you.... You. I guess that makes me a traditional.

It both is and isn't. It is universal to the extent that the golden mean is a universal notion. It is particular/individual to the extent that it is up to each person to strive towards the golden mean, according to their own natural strengths and weaknesses.

I don't think that you create your own purpose. I think it's given by the prime-mover, the prime-cause, what have you. I disagree with Camus and Sartre.

The problem here is that you have to fatten your metaphysics with a nebulous concept of prime-mover to establish the existence of universal purpose. But I think this comes from a conflation between metaphysical purpose (teleology) and what you call "purpose in life", which does not have to be metaphysical. If someone wants to be a painter, does it make sense to say that this is a purpose instilled in them by the prime-mover? Why can't we just say that this is what they want to do with their life? We call it 'purpose' but we could call it by other names which don't sound as teleological as that. Maybe a lot of people are simply driven to take on jobs to guarantee their survival and that of their families, in Darwinian fashion. I doubt that the Visigoths who invaded the Iberian peninsula spent much time wondering about their metaphysical purpose.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

Fascinating! Of course the symphony is not the music we express but the music that we are.

There's a cross-over - these two tracks are both naturally occurring processes that have been turned into sound. The first one, a recording of electromagnetic radiation from Saturn, has few discrete notes which is closer to real life than human music. The second, a recording of an earthquake, is a more humanised transposition - I ran a seismometer array in my youth that recorded the most amazing sounds when played through a loudspeaker.

What has this got to do with purpose ... everything, I think! Purpose in terms of the world we find ourselves in, not the limited purpose we project onto it.

I'm becoming more convinced that the quote "Without music, life would be a mistake" is much more literal than most people see it.

 

[Ren]

I'm becoming more convinced that the quote "Without music, life would be a mistake" is much more literal than most people see it.

Proust agrees

"When, after that first evening at the Verdurins’, he had had the little phrase played over to him again, and had had sought to disentangle from his confused impressions how it was that, like a perfume or a caress, it swept over and enveloped him, he had observed that it was to the closeness of the intervals between the five notes which composed it and to the constant repetition of two of them that was due that impression of a frigid and withdrawn sweetness; but in reality he knew that he was basing this conclusion not upon the phrase itself, but merely upon certain equivalents, substituted (for his mind’s convenience) for the mysterious entity of which he had become aware, before ever he knew the Verdurins, at that earlier party when for the first time he had heard the sonata played. He knew that the very memory of the piano falsified still further the perspective in which he saw the elements of music, that the field open to the musician is not a miserable stave of seven notes, but an immeasurable keyboard (still almost entirely unknown) on which, here and there only, separated by the thick darkness of its unexplored tracts, some few among the millions of keys of tenderness, of passion, of courage, of serenity, which compose it, each one differing from all the rest as one universe differs from another, have been discovered by a few great artists who do us the service, when they awaken in us the emotion corresponding to the theme they have discovered, of showing us what richness, what variety lies hidden, unknown to us, in that vase, unfathomed and forbidding night of our soul which we take to be an impenetrable void."

(PS. It's from Swann's Way)

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

Proust agrees

"When, after that first evening at the Verdurins’, he had had the little phrase played over to him again, and had had sought to disentangle from his confused impressions how it was that, like a perfume or a caress, it swept over and enveloped him, he had observed that it was to the closeness of the intervals between the five notes which composed it and to the constant repetition of two of them that was due that impression of a frigid and withdrawn sweetness; but in reality he knew that he was basing this conclusion not upon the phrase itself, but merely upon certain equivalents, substituted (for his mind’s convenience) for the mysterious entity of which he had become aware, before ever he knew the Verdurins, at that earlier party when for the first time he had heard the sonata played. He knew that the very memory of the piano falsified still further the perspective in which he saw the elements of music, that the field open to the musician is not a miserable stave of seven notes, but an immeasurable keyboard (still almost entirely unknown) on which, here and there only, separated by the thick darkness of its unexplored tracts, some few among the millions of keys of tenderness, of passion, of courage, of serenity, which compose it, each one differing from all the rest as one universe differs from another, have been discovered by a few great artists who do us the service, when they awaken in us the emotion corresponding to the theme they have discovered, of showing us what richness, what variety lies hidden, unknown to us, in that vase, unfathomed and forbidding night of our soul which we take to be an impenetrable void."

(PS. It's from Swann's Way)

Beautiful.
My interpretation is based on Nietzsche himself. I think both the quote as well as the rest of his philosophy is based on his affirmation of God and metaphysical order, despite superficially appearing to be saying the opposite. He makes the mad lad move by intentionally playing himself as the fool when he displays his love for cryptic trickery by denouncing everything that was known to stand for God, but in reality diametrically opposed everything that God meant to him - namely the discovery and embracing of meaning in this life instead of moving the goalposts towards a transcendental afterlife. In that sense, music represents God, as God represents order.

Speaking of order...

The problem here is that you have to fatten your metaphysics with a nebulous concept of prime-mover to establish the existence of universal purpose. But I think this comes from a conflation between metaphysical purpose (teleology) and what you call "purpose in life", which does not have to be metaphysical. If someone wants to be a painter, does it make sense to say that this is a purpose instilled in them by the prime-mover? Why can't we just say that this is what they want to do with their life? We call it 'purpose' but we could call it by other names which don't sound as teleological as that. Maybe a lot of people are simply driven to take on jobs to guarantee their survival and that of their families, in Darwinian fashion. I doubt that the Visigoths who invaded the Iberian peninsula spent much time wondering about their metaphysical purpose.

But it's not just what they want to do, there still has to be some causality, yes? No matter how subtle and ineffable an emotion might be the source of that motivation. Purpose does not have to be conventionally defined and acknowledged by the actor for it to be acted upon, and meaning does not require clarity for it to be felt. Consciousness can be pretty tautological in its explanation of its own machinations, in a way that abandons standard physical causality. I think this is the origin of the causa prima.

I'm not feeling sharp enough today to wrangle the mess of intuitive imagery I want to convey; hopefully this makes sense.

 

[Ren]

My interpretation is based on Nietzsche himself. I think both the quote as well as the rest of his philosophy is based on his affirmation of God and metaphysical order, despite superficially appearing to be saying the opposite. He makes the mad lad move by intentionally playing himself as the fool when he displays his love for cryptic trickery by denouncing everything that was known to stand for God, but in reality diametrically opposed everything that God meant to him - namely the discovery and embracing of meaning in this life instead of moving the goalposts towards a transcendental afterlife. In that sense, music represents God, as God represents order.

That's a really interesting interpretation. I agree that there is a lot more metaphysics in Nietzsche than meets the eye at first. He's remarkably consistent about that metaphysics across his works, too. What I'm not sure about is why it needs to posit a God--or do you mean this more metaphorically? I think that if there is room for God in Nietzsche's philosophy, it's a very different God from what we typically conceive as godlike. Would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this.

But it's not just what they want to do, there still has to be some causality, yes? No matter how subtle and ineffable an emotion might be the source of that motivation. Purpose does not have to be conventionally defined and acknowledged by the actor for it to be acted upon, and meaning does not require clarity for it to be felt. Consciousness can be pretty tautological in its explanation of its own machinations, in a way that abandons standard physical causality. I think this is the origin of the causa prima.

Do you mean that human beings must in some sense be caused to have purpose?

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

That's a really interesting interpretation. I agree that there is a lot more metaphysics in Nietzsche than meets the eye at first. He's remarkably consistent about that metaphysics across his works, too. What I'm not sure about is why it needs to posit a God--or do you mean this more metaphorically? I think that if there is room for God in Nietzsche's philosophy, it's a very different God from what we typically conceive as godlike. Would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Yes, God for N would be necessarily pantheistic - one that is represented by the totality of facts. To borrow from Wittgenstein: God is everything that is the case. I actually think the two have a lot in common, but it's more of an intuitive comparison than anything concrete.

Godliness for him was anti-Christian, because like most religions it imposed a limitation on how one ought to function in the world, which in turn limits the spectrum of human greatness. This is not to say that anything or anyone can be great, because ironically it requires a certain mode of being to achieve this greatness. There's a lot of nuance to untangle and would probably warrant a re-reading of the books to come to any specific conclusions. This kind of paradoxicality is key to Nietzsche however, because he's trying to show that there can be a multiplicity of truths inside a single fact, and that fact itself is evidencing divinity through its fundamental ungraspability. Even W eventually had to admit that the validity of language can't be based on its discernible logicality.

The biggest problem with conceptualizing God in this way is similar to the simulation hypothesis; any proof of it would have to be a product of its own function, and therefore self-referential. It's Tarski's undefinability theorem exemplified.

Do you mean that human beings must in some sense be caused to have purpose?

It makes sense to me, unless something can come out of nothing. But here I speak of cause in terms of discovery, not creation. It's like John said above, purpose exists a priori, but can be only realized a posteriori. It's that realization that must have some sequence of events leading to it.