What is the reason for life or living?

ntlbell

kelly1 wrote: »

Does this mean that people with better genes are more important than others?

people with better genes over time are the ones who survived and the reason you are now here today.

Take from that what you will

JohnGalt

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What is the reason for life or living? This question is bugging me but no matter how hard I try I can't seem to find the answer I keep ending up with 'why?' .:( There has to be a reason for us being here. Can anybody please enlighten me?

The question "what is the meaning of life" has always annoyed me. It is incredibly solipsistic to think the entire universe, which has existed since the dawn of time, is anything other than completely indifferent to a pathetic group of organisms which is likely to self destruct in a period that is less significant that a blink of an eye in terms of the grand scheme of things.

nyarlothothep

why do we distinguish ourselves from the universe if we are a part of it? Could it not be the case that our thoughts are the universes thoughts?

ntlbell

nyarlothothep wrote: »

why do we distinguish ourselves from the universe if we are a part of it? Could it not be the case that our thoughts are the universes thoughts?

Lets not try and take the thread down some ridiculous road...

maybe we're all cells in a big German Shepard's turd..

nyarlothothep

ntlbell wrote: »

Lets not try and take the thread down some ridiculous road...

maybe we're all cells in a big German Shepard's turd..

Why is it ridiculous? If the universe is everything then it includes us. Our thoughts occur within its history.

ntlbell

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous? If the universe is everything then it includes us. Our thoughts occur within its history.

We don't know if the universe is everything for a start the universe that we think we know is just something else and there' something else and something else it does n't have to encompass everything else...

people have this thing we're "inside" something....I think it's from watching too much television..

or the matrix or something...

our thoughts are the universes thoughts is just some hippy BS

nyarlothothep

ntlbell wrote: »

We don't know if the universe is everything for a start the universe that we think we know is just something else and there' something else and something else it does n't have to encompass everything else...

people have this thing we're "inside" something....I think it's from watching too much television..

or the matrix or something...

our thoughts are the universes thoughts is just some hippy BS

oh please, lay off the hippies, they're preferable to scumbags and angry squares.

Afawk, the universe is everything. Its pure conjecture to say the universe thinks, but one could separate thoughts from asteroids smashing into each other as specific qualia which, if you take the whole universe's history into account would be recorded as events.

Dave!

There is no inherent meaning or reason for life. This planet just happens to have abundant life, and as it turns out we are an example of that life, whom are capable of reflection, thought, philosophy, and other good stuff. As such, we can assign to our lives any meaning we so desire, and so long as it doesn't infringe on others' lives that's a-okay with me! For me the meaning of life is generally enjoyment, happiness, a large family, and close friends

sink

The one issue I would have with your post is that you say genes have intent. Genes are blind and there is no intent just random mutation with the natural selection of the best mutation sequences. In the natural world a gene which makes one homosexual would result in that gene not been past on the same can be said for the gene responsible for type 1 diabetes. The fact that in the 21st we have in vitro fertilisation, cloning and surrogate mothers and a treatment for diabetes means we no longer have to be slaves to natural selection and we can overcome the forces of evolution. Where that leads us in the long run is anyone's guess, but the point I'm making is that homosexual genes are not a mistake of nature any more than any other mutation, even one that help us reproduce better, as nature has no intent.

Joe1919

Dont forget that humans are also creative in term of concieving ideas, artificats, discoveries etc. Leornado De Vinci may not of contributed to the gene pool but he did contribute to humanity in other ways.
In this respect, been celebite or homosexual is not an issue.
Interestingly, Richard Dawkins accepts this form of 'dualism', he speaks of survival in terms of both genes and meme's.
Personally, I think the whole idea of there been a fixed 'meaning to life' ridiculous as everyone seems to has their own idea on what life is about. Perhaps we create our own meaning.

ntlbell

sink wrote: »

The one issue I would have with your post is that you say genes have intent. Genes are blind and there is no intent just random mutation with the natural selection of the best mutation sequences. In the natural world a gene which makes one homosexual would result in that gene not been past on the same can be said for the gene responsible for type 1 diabetes. The fact that in the 21st we have in vitro fertilisation, cloning and surrogate mothers and a treatment for diabetes means we no longer have to be slaves to natural selection and we can overcome the forces of evolution. Where that leads us in the long run is anyone's guess, but the point I'm making is that homosexual genes are not a mistake of nature any more than any other mutation, even one that help us reproduce better, as nature has no intent.

So there might come a time when we create a "treatment" for homosexuality?

"Take your meds son, remeber what happened when you forgot the last time, you got one up the bum son"

Húrin

Joe1919 wrote: »

Personally, I think the whole idea of there been a fixed 'meaning to life' ridiculous as everyone seems to has their own idea on what life is about. Perhaps we create our own meaning.

How can one credibly create meaning in a universe without ultimate meaning? It is futile and fake to try to create meanings if there is no overarching meaning.

Also, how can different purposes be judged if there is no objective meaning to measure them against? For instance the purpose Hitler gave himself would be as valid as that mother Teresa gave herself, if their meanings were authored by themselves under an overarching meaninglessness.

Húrin

IMO the point of living is to serve others so that you can become who you really are, or self-actualise in other words.

I have yet to meet someone who thinks life has no meaning and yet does not act like it does. Few have the courage to embrace existential despair (that does not mean misery). They all take the dishonest but easy option of "creating their own meanings".

Cerebral Cortex, I would recommend reading the books of Albert Camus. He was in the same boat you were.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Only humans would be arrogant enough to assume that there must be a reason for them to exist. If there is a more pointless lifeform in the universe than humans, it has yet to make itself known.

If you really believe that life has no meaning, you would see that all creatures are equally pointless.

Húrin

Neuro wrote: »

There's no more selfish or egotistical an act as having children. Buy hey, that's just me...

Doesn't life need to have a meaning in order to condemn an act as selfish?

Dave!

Húrin wrote: »

How can one credibly create meaning in a universe without ultimate meaning? It is futile and fake to try to create meanings if there is no overarching meaning.

It's not "fake", it's subjective. There is no objective overarching meaning to the universe, that we know of, and to suggest otherwise is simply wishful thinking. So if you're so inclined, you give your own life a meaning and pursue that. There's nothing futile or fake about it, it's simply a personal goal.

Húrin wrote: »

Also, how can different purposes be judged if there is no objective meaning to measure them against? For instance the purpose Hitler gave himself would be as valid as that mother Teresa gave herself, if their meanings were authored by themselves under an overarching meaninglessness.

They're equally valid to them, yeah. But if they're abhorrent to the rest of the world, then you're likely to see intervention. That's how societies work. Someone may claim that their goal in life is to rape as many people as possible, but that's abhorrent to the rest of society, so they usually get incarcerated for that.

Besides, if there was a meaning to life, what makes you think that everyone would suddenly change and pursue it? That's rather presumptuous.

Húrin wrote: »

IMO the point of living is to serve others so that you can become who you really are, or self-actualise in other words.

That's great, except I'm afraid it's gibberish.

"Become who you really are", wtf???

And how have you determined that this is the objective meaning of life, for everyone? It seems to me that it's your own meaning for life, same as Hitler's was to make Germany great again.

Húrin wrote: »

I have yet to meet someone who thinks life has no meaning and yet does not act like it does. Few have the courage to embrace existential despair (that does not mean misery). They all take the dishonest but easy option of "creating their own meanings".

Just like you're doing?

Joe1919

Húrin wrote: »

How can one credibly create meaning in a universe without ultimate meaning? It is futile and fake to try to create meanings if there is no overarching meaning.

Also, how can different purposes be judged if there is no objective meaning to measure them against? For instance the purpose Hitler gave himself would be as valid as that mother Teresa gave herself, if their meanings were authored by themselves under an overarching meaninglessness.

I think we can have objective meaning without ultimate or absolute meaning. What I'm trying to avoid here is polar thinking and to find a path midway between absolutism and relativism.
Objective thinking is one such path. But this is not absolute thinking.(imo) Absolute thinking is the idea that there is ultimately only one answer. Objective thinking is the idea that there are many answers but some answers are much better than others.
It's like the old expression 'there is more than one way of skinning a cat' but some ways are better than others.

If people were identical and lived in identical situations, then there may be absolute and ultimate meaning to their lives. But diversity and mutation and difference is important and is found as much in people as it is in nature and hence we have this conflict between the 'ideal' person and the ordinary individual. No one is ideal!

And that is why we scratch our heads and wonder and argue and look for an ultimate meaning and we wonder why it can't be found. Perhaps it can't be found because there is no ultimate meaning to be found.

starchild

in the cosmos as a whole the reason for living is to experience & bring that experience back to share with everybody & everything which of course is bringing it back to ourselves

ntlbell

starchild wrote: »

in the cosmos as a whole the reason for living is to experience & bring that experience back to share with everybody & everything which of course is bringing it back to ourselves

what?

sash5

Yes, there is a reason for us to be here. There is a reason that we live and survive among the other 2 billion people. We all have a destiny and we must recognize it. We were born to choose a path and to do our best at it. We must always keep an idea that our aim to be born in earth is to surpass all the other people that exist with us. We must consider that we were born to be the best there is. At any stage, we always have choices. It is our duty to choose to be the best of ourselves. It is the choices we make that determine who we are in life. We ourselves are our greatest enemies and the day we conquer ourselves is our greatest victory. Hence, our reason to exist is to thrive and to aim to achieve the sun above us.

Joe1919

sash5 wrote: »

Yes, there is a reason for us to be here. There is a reason that we live and survive among the other 2 billion people. We all have a destiny and we must recognize it. We were born to choose a path and to do our best at it. We must always keep an idea that our aim to be born in earth is to surpass all the other people that exist with us.

Your answer is very close to the idea of the 'will to live' or Nietzsches 'Will to power' and there is a lot to merit it. By 'destiny,' we could interperet that we are , like the animals and plants and all of nature determined or genetically programed to survive and flourish and compete for what bit of light (sun) or space that can be got.

However, this is not a reason as such but a pre-condition, as if we had NOT the 'will to live' or compete, we would not only survive but would not flourish and reproduce.(survival of the fittest)

furrylemmings

There is no hard tangible reason, everyone invents there own. Each person on this plan themselves interprets whether there is something they feel is important enought to them that they have to achieve it or follow it. The reason can be simple. For me, i just want to experience life. We dont neccisarily have to surpass anyone or anything, we dont have to better ourselves, but if you thirst for new experiences, then i would have to say its obvious you have some sort of a reason. This question can be interpereted in many ways.

From the point of view of broader meaning, i dont believe in any reason in our existance, or in anything really. But its still possible for each one of us to have our own driving reason.

mark renton

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What is the reason for life or living? This question is bugging me but no matter how hard I try I can't seem to find the answer I keep ending up with 'why?' .:( There has to be a reason for us being here. Can anybody please enlighten me?

Thats Simple - MONEY

Joe1919

john47832 wrote: »

Thats Simple - MONEY

MONEY by itself has no value, its only coloured bits of paper, its only a means to an end. i.e. the value of money is in what use the money is put for. The value in money is what it can do for you so perhaps you should consider 'what it is' and 'why it is' that you value money and then give a further reply.

mark renton

yes but Money is not just by itself, never was and never will be

Joe1919

john47832 wrote: »

yes but Money is not just by itself, never was and never will be

But if money is not by itself, then something must come with money, so..........

What is it that come with money that gives a reason to life and living ???

mark renton

Happiness - The more money I have the happier I am - works for me

Saibh

john47832 wrote: »

Happiness - The more money I have the happier I am - works for me

But money can't buy you happiness:)

Joe1919

john47832 wrote: »

Happiness - The more money I have the happier I am - works for me

I accept that many people are happy when they make money but there must be something between money and percieved happiness. i.e. What is it that you think you get from money ? e.g. Independence, respect, security, freedom, power, a sense of self worth, nice things,etc.
I'm not been nieve about money, I accept that many people enjoy making money and spending money and it does give people a reason to live but nevertheless I dont see money as a final goal (unless one is a miser).
Its worth probing and thinking and asking yourself 'What do I get from money.

mark renton

The link between poverty and sadness cannot be denied, if you went out and gave a poor person money what would happen? "No need to call Einstien out of his sleep for this one" - they would be pretty damn happy with themselves...

Joe1919

john47832 wrote: »

The link between poverty and sadness cannot be denied,...

But you are right in saying that 'poverty can make us unhappy' but thats not the same as saying that 'money will make us happy'. (This is called the fallacy of 'Denying the antecedent') http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

On a lighter note, There is an old saying that "Money wont make you happy but its better to be rich and miserable than poor and miserable."