Random Insanity Alliance Forum, Mark V
Cactuar Zone => Random lnsanity => Topic started by: wethepeople on October 24, 2007, 11:46:26 pm
-
Serious topic.
Not a religious debate. Please, /please/ don't start one. There are millions of answers to this question. You can give religious answers, but please don't argue. I want to know everyones personal opinion on this question. So, RIA, what is the point of life? Every person has a point, and at some point in life every person realizes their point. What is that point? What is the meaning of life? Some people think life is a test, others think it is meaningless, and yet others think it is for knowledge and understanding. What do you believe?
>_> Philosophical mood/10
Well, I believe the meaning of life is the times, and what situation your thrown in to. It all depends on the era you are born, the country, the life--It all comes into play. I highly doubt a caveman's dream was to build a robot, since such advanced welding and metals didn't even exist. It wouldn't even occur to the caveman. It depends on what has been laid out for you to see, and its up to you to pick. Do we obey the dictator, or disobey him? Do we save the homeless people I live by, or do we not? It all depends on what you experience. In essence I believe life is a mission of sorts. Is it a test? I don't know, I'm no longer religious. In essence I believe the meaning of life is what life gives you to do. Hard to describe, or understand. Not for me anyways. Knowledge does come into play, that could be a meaning, but that is a pointless meaning. I would rather die having saved people and done something for humanity instead of memorizing every book in the world, or discovering something new.
-
The point of life is knowledge. We must constantly question ourselves, so that we may learn.
-
TO SERVE AND WORSHIP THE GREAT ALLAH/MAHOMET/JOVE/GOD/CTHULU/FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER/KETCHUP/CATSUP + GENERIC RELIGIOUS DEBATE ASKALKNCNDF!!!
/end... whatever this was
-
>_> Gaunt.
-
I was under the impression that this topic was serious for a change.
-
Yes, it is.
-
Ok, I apologize. I feel that their is no meaning to life, other than the meaning you assign to it. Literally, you could live a life utterly devoid of meaning, but it can be argued that you still "lived."
The meaning is what you make of it.
I do believe that "why are you "you"" is quite a different topic. Are you talking about identity, or why yo
-
Interesting philosophy Gaunt. So you believe life is pointless unless you give it meaning? I suppose that would work. An interesting idea. It is what you make it. Hm.
-
Ok, I apologize. I feel that their is no meaning to life, other than the meaning you assign to it. Literally, you could live a life utterly devoid of meaning, but it can be argued that you still "lived."
The meaning is what you make of it.
I also feel that the question "why are you, "you"" is quite a different matter. Are you talking about identity, or why we exist?
-
Good point. Sorry, I'm friggin tired. That is a completely different topic, isn't it? I'll edit it.
-
The point of life, to me, is to just make it to the end with my sanity intact, while enjoying as much of it as I can manage, and without making it harder for others, if I can help it - life's a bitch as it is without people making things harder for each other. Ideally, I'd like to be of a net benefit to humanity, but I'm willing to settle for being a zero. Just so long as I'm not a negative
There's no set purpose to living, with each individual having a different one, sometimes decided upon by themselves, sometimes not, and always subject to change depending on the course one's life takes.
-
But think about life beyond the individual beings we are familiar with. Life is so much bigger than you or me. Life happens for a reason. If there is a place, it means nothing unless a living thing is there to occupy it. I believe that without Earth creatures, and without the creatures from so many other planets, there is no reason for any universe to exist. We and the universe are symbiotes in a sense far beyond the one we have developed to fit the word.
-
Well, I believe the meaning of life is the times, and what situation your thrown in to. It all depends on the era you are born, the country, the life--It all comes into play. I highly doubt a caveman's dream was to build a robot, since such advanced welding and metals didn't even exist. It wouldn't even occur to the caveman. It depends on what has been laid out for you to see, and its up to you to pick. Do we obey the dictator, or disobey him? Do we save the homeless people I live by, or do we not? It all depends on what you experience. In essence I believe life is a mission of sorts. Is it a test? I don't know, I'm no longer religious. In essence I believe the meaning of life is what life gives you to do. Hard to describe, or understand. Not for me anyways. Knowledge does come into play, that could be a meaning, but that is a pointless meaning. I would rather die having saved people and done something for humanity instead of memorizing every book in the world, or discovering something new.
-
Realistically, the major symbiotes have been there since the beginning, and will be there for infinity. Why did the beginning happen? That's a good question. I think it's because everything decided to begin. There was no reason other than because it needed to happen.
-
Why it needed to happen is a whole different, albeit more interesting topic Flask.
-
Guys, if you're going to talk about life, talk about life. Not humanity. Knowledge itself goes way beyond humanity, and it is forever there to be discovered.
-
Guys, if you're going to talk about life, talk about life. Not humanity. Knowledge itself goes way beyond humanity, and it is forever there to be discovered.
But the topic post was referring specifically to the life of an individual. An individual human being, to be exact. Not "life" in general.
-
But individual life is so stupid. It makes the same old conversation.
-
Individual life is the topic here. Complete life and life in general is a completely different topic, more on the lines of a relgious and philosophical debate. And those never end well.
-
I leave religion out of my discussions.
But if you wish to have your topic filled with comments about "what you make it" and "what it makes you", that's fine. I don't have to be a part of it.
-
beat to it
-
You're right Flask. This can be moved into a philisophical debate, but the first person to post a flame, sarcastic remark or is an overall ass will never hear the end of it from me. Ever.
You may object to peoples opinions, just do so without being an idiot.
-
The meaning of life is to create more life.
Thus, the meaning of life is sex and death.
-
Reproduction is our only genetic non-survival drive. Logically that is the meaning of life.
-
Reproduction is our only genetic non-survival drive. Logically that is the meaning of life.
It IS a survival drive. Over time, our bodies evolved in a way that reproduction was pleasurable. This encourages the continuation of the species by providing incentive to reproduce. It may not be survival of the individual, but it is a survival trait of a species.
If sex wasn't pleasurable, would be as motivated to participate in it?
-
42.
-
Music.
-
Music.
I completely agree.
-
Read The Selfish Gene.
And for some quotes: http://shijeru.us/Quotes/selfishgene.html (http://shijeru.us/Quotes/selfishgene.html)
-
Well, as per my slacker/procrastinator nature, I'd have to say it doesn't matter to me, but I am still here right now. So, it's probably best to make things as good as possible while I'm here.
-
Have sex with as many people as possible.
ATTENTION LADIES: LINE STARTS HERE:
-
Silly noobs...
The point of life is...
42
-
Wow... some grave digging there.
-
The point of life mainly is to die. Everything you do prepares you for death. Birth to Preschool to Elementary school to Jr. High to High School to College to Working to Retirement and then finally death. Your duty in your life is to do your best at these jobs so that society may advance.
Of course death is pointless without Jesus Christ in your heart because, unless you have lived a sinless life which only one person has ever done, then you are going to Hell which is eternal suffering and pain.
-
I'm afraid I don't believe there is a pre-destined point to life, you make your own. People turned to religion so they believed their life would have meaning.
Existence before essence
-
lol commisar gawnt
point of life is to attain godhood.
-
Reproduction. What it comes down to is evolution; humans expressly adapted to be the best at reproducing, to pass on DNA.
I myself am actually very religious and am not denying that there are higher purposes in life. If there weren't the smartest people would start having sex in middle school so as to procreate as much as possible. However, biologically there are none. Spiritually, ethically there are.
-
The point of life is something that the individual must define for oneself.
-
Reproduction.
Nawt Reproduction.
lol moth
-
The purpose of my life is not to propagate the human race. Reproduction is a duty that should be executed and moderated by humanity and nature, but it's hardly the point of life.
-
I said the biological point of life. We are driven to it by evolution; that's what makes sex pleasurable. However, there is a more spiritual point to life, I just don't know what it is. Be good?
-
There may be no biological point of life. It's possible that life itself is a freak of nature, and that, were conditions not perfect, it could easily have never been.
Mere existence is not adequate evidence of the presence of a purpose.
-
Not of a higher purpose, no.
But through what-have-you, we have evolved and the purpose of those millions of years is us. Everyone alive and their posterity. For us to create a posterity.
I'm not denying or proposing a spiritual purpose to life, only saying that we have been engineered through natural selection to reproduce.
-
godhood is the biological point of life. life inherently wills itself to overcome anything that would limit it; thus life inherently strives for godhood, for perfection.
-
Way I see it, we'll never find the true 'Meaning of Life', because everyone has their own version... Unless you cheat and use a dictionary:P
I just reckon the best way to think of this is - what do you want your own life to mean?
-
I've never understood this whole argument, why does there have to be a meaning to life? I prefer to just live. And even if there is, what do you do when you find out what it is?
-
At this point in time, I have found absolutely no meaning to any life. Any life.
I believe any person who attempts to assign his own meaning to life is lying to himself and everyone else, whether he knows it or not.
-
that anything chooses to go on living reflects that they find it meaningful. anyone who says there is no meaning, and goes on living, is lying. even the search for absolute meaning is a meaning of a kind.
-
Well of course there are reasons that I don't just end my life now, but I'm referring to the 'reason' why life came to be in the first place. I always thought that it was sort of obsolete unless you believed in god/s or fate.
-
the point of life is to bang as many chicks as possible before u die.
-
the point of life is to bang as many chicks as possible before u die.
so explain your lack of suicide
-
Procreate. Await further instructions.
In all seriousness, I figure the meaning of my own life is to be the best person that I possibly can be. I don't have to win a Nobel Prize or land on the moon in order for my life to have meaning. As long as I go through life making the best of it that I possibly can, by helping others and adding a little light to the lives of the people around me, I'll die a happy man.
-
if i ever win the nobel prize i'll be tempted to get a vagina if i dont have one already just so i can make a porno of me getting off on it.
or i'll get this girl to do it for me NSFW
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8282/xds2vk0.jpg)
-
point of life.................boobies lots of boobies
-
There is no point in life except to reproduce and pass on your genes.
-
There is no point in life except to reproduce and pass on your genes.
Wanna reproduce with me?
-
42?
-
There is no point in life except to reproduce and pass on your genes.
i.e. to evolve.
and the purpose of evolution is to overcome all limitations exerted upon life (it's an innate purpose)
i.e. to attain godhood
life is a self preserving and propagating order. a transcendent being is the ultimate life form; it is made of pure order and is in synchronicity with pure order and all absolute truth that exists.
all order is to some extent self preserving and propagating; and existence itself is a kind of order, therefore everything that exists is alive, albeit to a greatly varying degree.
even what we think of as chaos, cannot exist outside of the context of order, because to behave typically in any way, i.e. a way that can be described, including chaotically, is a kind of order. there is no absolute chaos. paradoxically, I can conceptualize and describe something as absolute chaos, but having conceptualized it and described it, i have given it order. so let me say it metaphorically; absolute chaos (and all chaos), both in this description and in all of reality, is only a shadow of a shadow, an implication that is always misleading, an optical illusion in the mind's eye. even my description of 'it' is false because 'it' by definition can't be described so any description of 'it' renders itself a lie, which is fitting. the only place it exists is in the perceptions that misbelieve in it (by believing it exists outside of perception). it's an illusion created by divergence of perceptions - by omniscience no longer being common understanding. (but especially, by not knowing yourself; however since we are all part of reality, we'd have to know all of reality to really know ourselves). so science is good. the more we know, the more we know ourselves. until we know ourselves completely, we will have a divergent perception of ourselves, and this perception will manufacture the illusion of chaos, keeping the lie alive. but not really since chaos can't live. it's more like, we would be keeping the experiment of semiscience (not knowing everything) alive (which will go on for as long as it can anyway but we don't know how long that is so no point in dragging it out unnecessarily).
'godhood' is just our primitive but instinctual term recognizing the last stage of evolution; whether there are gods or not, it's what we all inherently reach for by the nature of our being. we are part of order, and order wants to reorder everything. it may take millions of years, it may not, we might get help from already existent 'gods', we may not, but it is the inevitable direction of all life.
god i hope i dont sound like a scientologist douchebag. a lot of religions get bits and parts right, but then they turn into an excuse to stop asking questions and stop learning. i am not crossing my fingers hoping to be omniscient in my life time... but just like we have, our knowledge evolves over the generations. along with the cultural ability to accept that knowledge and not ignore it. and everyone plays a part in that process...
what we think of as a chaotic world is really just a long mathematical equation that has not yet worked itself out, illustrating what would happen if order were allowed to separate from itself. would it come back in agreement with itself willingly? is order inherently able to reorient itself in an apparent vacuum of order? nature of the universe: greatest science project EVAR
-
The point in life relies mostly in what we believe about freedom and determinism.
Even though, it is possible to say that life is pointless in both ways, just because if we have a real freedom of choice (the point in freedom, at least in one concept of freedom, that consists in freedom as absence of constraint), then morals are always pure choice (Sartre), and life goes only on that planning. The objects are only subjective and point of life is reducted to nothing.
In the other hand, detrminism can provide, in one particular sense, a point in life, in the goal of determinism. But what about the determined to not reach the goal? They have point in life? What about determinism as a darwinian social structure? It has a goal? I think it's impossible to say about determinism that it provides a real point in life.
But, in fact, a second concept of freedom can provide limited point in life, again, marked by choice. Isaiah Berlin refers to it in a well-known article, seeing this freedom as a power to determine ourselves. The point in life here resides in what we decide to be.
-
there is no absolute freedom (just like there is no absolute chaos for a similar reason). if you say 'this is chaos, unordered' you have shown that it has some order, by the nature of being confined to a term and described. chaos will always be chaos, and that limits its chaoticness. and just as chaos is limited by it's own identity, we are limited by our own identities. we can't be free from ourselves, we can't be 'not us.' at least, without ceasing to be, at all. and even then we 'once were' and can be defined and limited, or the we that once was can be.
life is inherently deterministic by the nature of existing at all, but also everything, the more deterministic it is, and the more it exerts power to survive and explore its own purpose, the more alive it is considered to be. and the more it explores its purpose, the more it shapes itself and gives itself purpose to the end of creating purpose. we are the engines of determinism, but in reality so is everything else.
when people say freedom they understand the meaning of the word, loosely, but the way they use it usually means, free from everyone else but myself. failure to realize that you can't be free of yourself often leads to confusion when thinking about determinism, because people think that, just because they don't really understand themselves or know themselves completely, there can be no definitive 'self_value' which could play a deterministic part in the scheme of things. I dont know myself so I cannot possibly be known to some greater intrinsic purpose. I dont trust myself so I can't be trusted.
It's my belief that part of the point of things is, well to find the point of things and to realize the extent to which you determine the point of things, and to what extent you don't. this ends up being a flowing balance between absolute freedom and absolute determinism (which cannot exist except within an individual). otherwise known as love <3
-
The nature of freedom can't be defined without an individual. I can't say about a fuchsia (sponge, dog, rock, etc.) that is free. In the sense that is noted about determinism, the only thing that should be clear is that choice is determined by the individual (that means choice), and that choice is also influenced by other things.
I don't believe in a point of life.
-
by living, you (you in totality, not just the you that speaks from the conscious level of your mind, which is the you that is talking now) denote that you value living. (and the you that speaks and is self aware, but is not all of you or aware of all of you, is based on the part of you you do not know)
-
I've heard that argument many times. Actually, it is a petitio principii, because the conclusion is included in the premises.
The only thing that can be explained by the argument that in the fact of living we are doing a point of life is merely functional. The system of a living being has in itself a point, homeostasis, as is referred in second order cybernetics. I should say that we are different of a dog; cybernetics is not the point here.
-
The very concept of determinism denies any real point to life, instead it merily decides that occurences are based on past events out of the control the person that is experiencing their lot in life. To give a serious answer the point of life is simply to find happiness and content within your mind, if life is only a series of events caused by a single occurence in the past then our actions are only the by product of other events. The only place where we can have meaning and any sense of freedom is within our mind in what we care about and what our thoughts are to an extent.
Seek happiness and love==meaning of life.
and....................always......boobies
-
I've heard that argument many times. Actually, it is a petitio principii, because the conclusion is included in the premises.
The only thing that can be explained by the argument that in the fact of living we are doing a point of life is merely functional. The system of a living being has in itself a point, homeostasis, as is referred in second order cybernetics. I should say that we are different of a dog; cybernetics is not the point here.
either at some point the 'truth' is connected to itself, self-evident, and circular, or it is not fully true. there are many circular arguments that are false, but if the circle can be expanded far enough so as not to exclude anything, a circular argument can be true. there comes a point at which expanding it further is useless, and it's enough to imply the possibilities outside of it as only superficially outside of it, reinforcing it by their superficial uselessness. logic in totality is a circle that expands infinitely. it makes everything useful and includes everything.
we are not fully the same or fully different from a dog.
there is no such thing as mere function (except in perception which is only superficially separate from it), because function, identity, and perception are all facets of the individual pheonomenon of existence. and every 'thing' is an individual, because to exist is a verb which implies a noun which implies a definition which then continues on to imply a verb again.
The very concept of determinism denies any real point to life, instead it merily decides that occurences are based on past events out of the control the person that is experiencing their lot in life. To give a serious answer the point of life is simply to find happiness and content within your mind, if life is only a series of events caused by a single occurence in the past then our actions are only the by product of other events. The only place where we can have meaning and any sense of freedom is within our mind in what we care about and what our thoughts are to an extent.
Seek happiness and love==meaning of life.
and....................always......boobies
"occurences are based on past events out of the control the person that is experiencing their lot in life."
that's a misconception of determinism that assumes that individuality = being unaware of your past, your entire self, and your future. just because you do not know your past, your future, or what you will do in all situations and who you really are, does not mean that those things are indeterminate. having your awareness stuck at a point in space-time has created like i said earlier, an optical illusion in your mind's eye. when you think of 'who am I really' your mind drops an anchor and doesn't hit the bottom. Your deepest thoughts of yourself acknowledge the mystery. You then consider the idea of determinism and realize its apparent lack of mystery in the way it orders things, including you, your past and your future, and since you have associated your deepest sense of yourself with a sense of mystery, you think you are a mystery, specifically a mystery that can't be solved. at least this was the assumption I deconstructed in my mind. but that assumption doesn't hold. to know yourself completely you actually have to be omniscient, to include all factors that may effect you. once you were omniscient you'd know who you were, who you are, who you will be, what you'd do, what you do, and what you will do, what you thought, what you think, and what you will think. however, the past present and future stretch on infinitely, there is infinite potential in all directions, so even if the mystery has changed, things wouldn't be boring, and you wouldn't be any less yourself. I suppose that's the one thing about determinism that I disagree with - that all you are is the sum of what you were. say you were in touch with this Omniscience, I tend to think of it as an experience, but some people might call it god, no point in labeling it one way or the other. say your mind was swimming in this knowledge of everything; you'd come to realize infinite potentials in every direction, and in every individual and instance of choice. From this vantage point you could see your choices because you would know you are perfect and be perfectly at peace with all possibilities. but knowing everything you would know the highest and best and most logical and most beneficial choices, (and love ultimately is the highest form of logic) so you couldn't resist making them, because you had become a part of this omniscience and pepetrating it would just be you being yourself. you could calculate everything else and their actions and perceptions by how much they were experiencing the same state of being. and in this state of being nothing lacks meaning because the internal congruency and symmetry is absolute. there is no shortage of pure experience involved in knowing everything, because the knowledge stretches infinitely like the circle that always expands.
tldr; happiness love boobs
-
There is such thing as mere function. I didn't said that we can rely on mere function; I said that function is an explanation of life, and of course, if we see only the biology in life, we'll only see function. And perception can be done by groups: mass media are doing this all the time.
Even though logics can be a circular system, it denies the possibility of tautology as a valid argument. A petitio principii can't be, actually a manner in which we explain something: it is created to explain something making it fit to the basis.
Ok. Boobies.
-
"Plastic, assholes!"
-George Carlin, quoting the Earth, explaining why humanity exists
Life has no intrinsic point. It is at best what the individual with free will makes of it, it is as least that which establishes awareness within the Universe, and it is as worst nothing more than the same autonomous, predetermined clockwork that drives the motion of celestial bodies. Purpose in the cosmic sense is meaningless, and life as a whole is very much at the cosmic scale. And this is all assuming that anything at all exists.
-
We are only alive to feel pain. By the end of it we yearn for death and hope it will come quickly. Life really holds no meaning and the quicker it is over the better.
-
We are only alive to feel pain. By the end of it we yearn for death and hope it will come quickly. Life really holds no meaning and the quicker it is over the better.
What makes pain so valuable that it was worth causing life to happen?
-
It's not, it is just a cruel joke.
-
And this is all assuming that anything at all exists.
to question whether 'anything at all' exists is one of the most profoundly illogical mental stunts an awareness can perform; however it can never be performed sincerely. how can something that doesn't exist, wonder if it doesn't exist? only if logic doesn't apply, and all of language and thought is made up of structures of logical assumptions. our awareness are in part composed of them; so it's pointless to try and use these logic structures to test objectively whether logic structures exist. by the nature of trying to ascertain whether some things are possible or impossible, it is implied that some things are possible, and some things are impossible, or else the attempt won't go anywhere. it's like questioning the validity of questioning, or assuming the invalidity of assumption. I suppose the more complex and broad an oxymoron is, the harder it is to recognize it for what it is. but the idea that nothing exists, that nothing is absolute, that nothing can be known absolutely or objectively, that nothing is limited, all of these ideas are self-defeating and pure mental faptrainnery. but I guess anyone could figure that out if they had as much idle time as I do >.<
-
And this is all assuming that anything at all exists.
to question whether 'anything at all' exists is one of the most profoundly illogical mental stunts an awareness can perform
Tell that to Rene Descartes. >_>
How can you be certain that you exist? By what standards do you judge the meaning of existence? And are those standards truly indivisible and unquestionable? Don't get me wrong, I too believe that existence is real, but I cannot extend my confidence regarding it beyond belief. It is not knowledge.
But anyway, back to the point at hand. We are alive to experience a cruel joke? How is pain a cruel joke? Is pain an inherently malicious experience? Is it humorous? If so, what is on the giving end of this joke? The words you use to explain meaning need to be clear and certain. Any ambiguity in meaning is contradictory.
-
I'm sure my pain is huge amusement to others. I always pictured life as a computer game. Someone is sitting up there on a computer playing away and watching his characters suffer. They will kill someone off just to see how it affects you, and laugh when you break down. It is a cruel joke. They will make someone get raped and jerk of like it is porn, and enjoy the sadistic nature of it. They will keep torturing you until you can't take it anymore.
Then, Game Over.
So they just restart the game and some other puppet has to deal with all the trails and try to make it through long enough until the player gets bored and just lets you live your life unmolested.
-
As the great philosopher Claypool once stated, who is "they"? o_o
-
And this is all assuming that anything at all exists.
to question whether 'anything at all' exists is one of the most profoundly illogical mental stunts an awareness can perform
Tell that to Rene Descartes. >_>
"How can you be certain that you exist?"
it can't really be debated, in that the debate doesnt go anywhere; the only evidence for it is self-evidence, the only argument for it is circular, < these things, as far as I can tell, and probably as far as anyone can tell. which is why it wouldn't be useful to debate.
presumably we are dealing with the most common concept described as existence which we crudely handle with words and language which are by nature separate from the concepts they describe.
but it amounts to asking an oxymoronic question; how can you (you being by definition, someone who exists and is self-aware, thus aware that you exist) be (what you were just defined as being)? if the definitions involved in the assumptions weren't valid, weren't conceptualizations of real phenomena, then we couldn't even logically answer the question, let alone pose it. if you ask yourself, 'Am I Real?,' you've validly, circularly proven that you are, by implication; all things that ask themselves questions are real. any definition of reality that denies this implodes into impossibility.
how can we know (the thing defined as x) is x? because we defined it as x. it proves itself. even the 'is' and 'x?' portions are subjective descriptions, so it is in effect saying how can we know (what we define as x) is (what we define as x). We play a trick on ourselves thinking that one part of the problem is subjective and the other is objective. But everything we describe in this manner, is described subjectively, and there is no point at which we no longer have to use faith. in this direction of thinking, where we attempt to find something valid by doubting everything, there is no point we come to at which we find something we can't doubt, no point at which things aren't in some way subjectifiable via perspective. Ultimately your own belief is the only thing you can rely on. And even though everything in our experience can be doubted, this does not mean it is all negatable. it cannot be completely, sincerely, 100% doubted (which might imply negation), as we are too subjective, we are subjected by our connection to reality, which keeps us pinned in a position such that we can't completely doubt it, because it would require us doubting what we are, 100%, i.e., not existing.
if you ask anyone 'but why?' long enough, and they progress linearally, they will come to a point where they say, 'just because.' the thing defined as x, is x, 1. because we defined it as x, 2. because x defined it as x, 3. because x is defined, 4. because. answer: all of the above, and any other symmetric iteration of assumptions.
By what standards do you judge the meaning of existence?
I judge that things are meaningful based on how symmetric a given conceptualization of them is with the information they produce (stimuli) and the information produced by everything else I experience. our perceptions of the things around us organizes itself into patterns in our awareness as a means of exploring its potential past present and future. I judge the meaning of things based on how well I am able to integrate them into the pattern of my awareness, and how and where they are integrated.
And are those standards truly indivisible and unquestionable? Don't get me wrong, I too believe that existence is real, but I cannot extend my confidence regarding it beyond belief. It is not knowledge.
all methods of perception are divisible and questionable, but not 100%, absolutely, or sincerely. questioning and doubt can be extended endlessly, but is not possible without an assumption that is not questioned, from which to leverage the question, and is not useful without valid assumptions basing the questions.
knowing things objectively, is something we dont really experience; everything is believed, including the things we consider knowledge, the difference is the intensity, depth, and reflexiveness of the belief. if we do 'know' anything really, it is that we exist, and that the stimuli we experience exists, and the basic implications of those phenomena. but that basic knowledge does not exclude the involvement of faith; its truth, self-belief, and self-evidence are inextricably linked phenomena that forms the phenomenon of being. if anything can be known/believed, this is the most absolute 100% form of knowing/believing. and while we experience this phenomenon of being, our consciousness is fractured and we do not experience the phenomenon completely because/and thus we do not know ourselves completely.
But anyway, back to the point at hand. We are alive to experience a cruel joke? How is pain a cruel joke? Is pain an inherently malicious experience? Is it humorous? If so, what is on the giving end of this joke? The words you use to explain meaning need to be clear and certain. Any ambiguity in meaning is contradictory.
not sure who this is directed to, and the morality and purpose of pain leads the debate in an explicitly spiritual direction
-
<i>you've validly, circularly proven that you are, by implication; all things that ask themselves questions are real.</i>
>_> I disagree. In essence, you've given a simplified form of Descartes' argument for the validity of existence. Strong though it may be, it does not take into account the possibility of the logic we utilize to come to that conclusion as not truly existing. We could be illusions of ourselves using an illusion of logic we believe to exist, simply because we're incapable of thinking in a manner that belies its existence. >_>
Yes, you are right that these debates always get circular, BUT due to the impossibility of proving that anything exists, there must be cause for doubt. The neat thing is that if the logic we understand is only an illusion to go along with everything else, then it still reinforces my point. ;>.>
Descartes tried to eliminate faith from his proof, in order to prove the existence of God without the use of faith, but in doing so, he removed a crucial counterexample to his proof of the validity of existence. >_>
-
"We could be illusions of ourselves using an illusion of logic we believe to exist, simply because we're incapable of thinking in a manner that belies its existence. >_>"
in terms of being or not being - if we Are, then we are real in some sense, as are all illusions. if something exists in perception, it exists, even if only within the whole of that which perceives it.
"Strong though it may be, it does not take into account the possibility of the logic we utilize to come to that conclusion as not truly existing."
the logic we utilize would have no utility if it did not consider some things possible and some things logically impossible. it is logically impossible for us to come to the conclusion that we are not and have never been anything. if we came to that conclusion, it would be illogically (and inconclusively, because subconsciously and partly consciously, we would not believe it, because it is functionally impossible to believe, as belief is also a thing and implicitly linked to existence). I think it does take that possibility into account, but it does so within the very definition of logic itself. all language is built on a structure of logic - this means this and not that. one thing and not the other. definition. in nothing, there is no definition. there is no logic. nothing doesn't exist. even these quantifications of nothing can only imply something logical, because if used absolutely, they defeat themselves and become oxymorons, as does anything that treats 'nothing' as an absolute. so no one can ever come to absolute conclusions about nothing (yes this is also self-defeating). besides, if we do not truly exist, then logic can't tell us that we don't, because to know that truly we'd have to be objective. also, utilizing logic, coming to conclusions, thinking, believing, perceiving, all imply some level of existence and definition. either you disbelieve in the existence of definition (which is self-defeating because by disbelieving and in fact doing any thinking at all you have defined a moment of belief or thought, AND you have to define the term definition to believe or disbelieve it) or you can see how the circular argument did take into account that possibility, as being logically impossible. either you believe that nothing can prove itself (a belief which can't prove itself, is self-defeating, and defeats all other belief) or you believe something can prove itself (a belief which works).
"The neat thing is that if the logic we understand is only an illusion to go along with everything else, then it still reinforces my point. ;>.>"
no, because if it has a point, than it has a logic. if logic is only an illusion, than so is the premise that logic is an illusion. see what I mean by self-
defeating? to be illusory is to behave according to a certain kind of logic, the logic that defines the term illusory. to be nothing and insubstantial is to behave according to a certain kind of logic, which logic defeats itself in an attempt, in this sentence, to describe what it can't describe. nothing, and absolute insubstantiality, cannot be accurately described or encapsulated, even in this sentence. every attempt to handle nothing is useless, even this attempt, which defeats itself. the idea that logic is an illusion is likewise self-defeating. so when you start to recognize these oxymoronic loops in thinking, while you can spend as much time defeating yourself within them as you want, easier just to move on. all thought is a form of attempted organization; so disbelieving in logic, in the long term, amounts to attempting to organizing a way to realize that you never attempted to organize.
if what we experience is not existence, then the concept of existence is useless. if what we experience is nothing, than all conceptualization is useless (and nothing), so any questions in that direction amount to a snake biting itself in the ass. just because a snake can bite itself in the ass doesn't mean that that is the reason it evolved that ability.
the purpose of questioning is not to question everything, but to find things to believe in, things that are the least questionable. you can go on questioning forever but if you question questioning itself you know the point at which questioning destroys its own basis, which is Finding a Useful Answer.
-
You're strengthening my argument by continuing this circle. >_>
-
your argument debases all arguments.
-
Democritus swears that the abderitans are all liars; Democritus is an abderitan; then, Democritus is lying; then, all abderitans says the truth; the, Democritus is right; then, all abderitans are liers. This argument, referred many times, including a short story by Jorge Luis Borges, extends infinitely.
Logics can have these unsolving arguments; it have its basis in faith, actually. We have to believe in the grounds of a discipline in order to discuss it. Epistemologically, there in such thing as a distinct ground for religion or science, as pointed Feyerabend, as all things, at last, are based on belief.
Actually, I revised the topics thinking about the rise of murder punishment in the civilizations, as I'm reading some things in Criminology. The tradition can be a common ground, but it seems weak and undemonstrable.
-
the tradition of capital punishment?
-
Actually yes in a particular sense. The point in our social structures is constructed on the basis of the scapegoat mechanics, as suggest René Girard, a french sociologist. An innocent victim is charged, we kill him/her, and that is the foundational moment of our society, as we are united against the scapegoat, and we pass the level of the nature state. Of course, Girard says also that this mechanics lose its validity when it is put into the light; that happened with the Passion of Christ.
I'm not gonna keep in charge of the last argument. I only will say that we have to merge this mechanics with the crime.
-
I would think the foundational moment of society is when they're united enough to kill anyone they perceive as dangerous enough (whether they are right or it is just a scapegoat pretense). however for a society to be united in killing the innocent tends to be self destructive, because the sense of innocence is part of the code the members of society use to figure out how to behave in a way that keeps them in the society and keeps them from being a victim of it. if they see their victim as innocent, which is more likely if the victim is innocent, then they are less likely to feel the society will not turn on them.
so society is most stable, most trusted, and therefore most social, when it exhibits to its own members and to prospective members, that it doesn't kill the innocent, or anymore than necessary to survive. how to do that is hard to pin down and it's all gray but still, the perception of society's good intent and usefulness towards individuals, is what gets societies started and keeps them going, by individuals.
-
Pretty sure we talked about this one before, C-zoom, but basically:
Ok, I apologize. I feel that their is no meaning to life, other than the meaning you assign to it. Literally, you could live a life utterly devoid of meaning, but it can be argued that you still "lived."
The meaning is what you make of it.
I do believe that "why are you "you"" is quite a different topic. Are you talking about identity, or why yo
This in that you should do whatever you want to do with life and nothing moar.
-
you're commisar gaunt? aren't you in MK?
-
The society founded upon a scapegoat (always innocent, would say Girard) does not perceive actually its victim as innocent. The scapegoat had enraged the gods, killed his mother, or simply for its conditions (children/virgins killed to appease the gods). All of these excuses only mask the innocence of the original victim.
The society reflects that foundational moment in order to not devolve to the bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all.
-
well I dont think we actually leave a 'nature state.' what we consider justice is IMO just an evolution of herd or pack behavior, where we are banding together to protect ourselves from a threat, except that we are plentiful enough that we compete with eachother, and are wolves and sheep to eachother.
the strength of the tradition of herd protection from its own members, in our case depends on how much everyone agrees the killing of the scapegoat was warranted by an actual danger in the scapegoat. and how much we agree on that does have something to do with how dangerous the scapegoat actually was.
to support this tradition, the herd members need to 1. be in touch with the reality of whatever danger the victim represents, (at which point they will instinctively feel their right to end that danger) 2. believe in the herd or society's awareness of that same danger to be accurate and in agreement, 3. believe that the danger is substantive enough to warrant lethal force (ex. the danger itself is lethal or may cause severe irreperable damage such as mental damage), 4. believe in the herd's ability to execute the victim in the most surgical but efficient manner with minimal repercussions beyond the victim.
the sense of one's own right to live is based in instinct. the recognition of this instinct in others is the basis of society IMO. so without 1. the individual will not feel that it is rightful/necessary to support the tradition. without 2. then 4. would be impossible, but also without 2., even if 4. were the case, the individual would feel that the other individuals, the herd, were enforcing the tradition for unrightful/unnecessary reasons, and such use represents a threat because 1. not only makes the individual feel rightful in self defense by proxy, but by making sure the individual only supports the tradition rightfully, it let's the individual separate themself from the victim (and sometimes correctly) and thus disqualify themselves from becoming the next victim. so without 2. then the individual doesn't know that the individuals subject themselves to 1. and if they do not, they'd be qualifying themselves to be victims of the tradition. 1. operates on the basis of society, the assumption that all similar creatures have a similar right to live because they share a similar desire to live and have thus agreed to cooperate. the agreement, assumed though it may often be, is what grants the rights. the tradition of herd protection from herd member via lethal force, basically says that when someone breaks the agreement they render themself on the outside of the agreement, and the agreement-keepers are the society. specifically the victim breaks the agreement in such a way that forces someone to choose between their right to live, and the victim's right to live. It is considered part of the agreement that you dont force this choice on anyone. By forcing it you break the agreement and give up the rights the agreement gave you, at which point, all other things being equal, you have no right to live.
/tangent
3. is really just an extension of 1. and 4. is simply the recognition that if the herd can't protect an individual the individual can protect themselves. without 4 individuals will resort to direct self-defense.
tldr
you could simplify it to 1. you perceive yourself as being member of herd via agreement of society 2. you feel lethally or extremely endangered 3. you perceive that your feelings are shared or empathized with by herd 4. you perceive that herd is capable of ending endangerment better than yourself.
in the context where these criteria are met, it's likely your support for the tradition would continue as a natural social behavior, functioning as a combination of cooperation and self-defense. Your perceptions of these criteria will also be effected by whether reality echoes the criteria and how accurate your perception of reality is. As the realities of the individual, the victim, and the herd grow and expand, the perception of reality becomes more difficult and all the criteria are effected. the main reason I see today that the tradition has waned, is that the size of society by itself as well as the complexity of human behavior due to that size, has to some extent removed a logical understanding of what danger exists and how it works. people are less sure of both their safety and endangerment, and are thus less commited to traditions in general; because society is changing so rapidly, there is not a proper environment for old traditions to be modified appropriately or for new ones to form. Expect this to continue for as long technological progress is unchecked, or until societies learn to invest in cultural development simultaneously to other necessities, which would mean losing arms races.
-
At this point, I should have to say an ad hominem argument: It's a clear particularity of the english-spoken people manner of thinking to not understand that the human being does not behave as a pendulum between individualism and herd mentality.
But, in fine you should see that the four sentences that you have pointed are equally the same that the law & order movement has as argument for capital punishment. So, we can imagine the same thing in older societies. The Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan can show that, even though you won't believe in anything said in that book. Me neither.
The latter thing is oriented to a thing well explained as an anomie, and is very used in social science; even within the Law.