Meaning of life?

RichieO

The meaning of life.



A question with no answer?



The wrong question?



Ask, what is life.



The answer is:


The universe experimenting with everything
at it’s disposal, just to know itself.

shanered

We are an extenion of universal energies examining itself.

RichieO

Some people spend their entire lives trying to be "one with everything" not realising it's not an option, or something to aspire to.
You already are, whether you like it or not....

RichieO

shanered wrote: »

We are an extenion of universal energies examining itself.

Yes, that too....

MRnotlob606

Perhaps there is no meaning in life, the only meaning is what we give to it ourselves as Sartre would of put it.

Black Swan

Friedrich Nietzsche in The Will to Power (1967 translation) proclaimed an affirmation of life's meaning based upon the moment:

"If we affirm one single moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event—and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed."

Live for the moment. Each has meaning to be discovered, reflected upon, and learned. All have value. Each is precious.

Torakx

What does it mean when saying, the universe is examining itself?
I have an interest in entropy and i'm always asking my friends doing physics to remind me of the process in relation to time.
Because i want to understand the foundations of what might be happening at the core of things that effects all other processes in the universe.

One of my vague memories to an answer to entropy, was that the uuniverse is constantly trying to break down energy, so it creates complex things that can break down faster(that is it's purpose). Hence we exist. But behind all that i then ask...WHY?
Why does it need to break down energy and what does that mean in relation to other philosophies.
really i only have a rough grasp of Nietzsches idea of "the Will" and that it might be possible to link it there with those foundational processes. Or I would love to see it linked.

Another interesting thought that came from that conversation on entropy is wether time can go backwards.
I had this mad idea, that if time(which doesn't exist but can be seen through entropy so kind of is entropy) can go forward and things can build and saythe universe was like a giant lung expanding, whatwould happen when it started to collapse? would "time" go backwards? Sounds silly now, i can see issues already with that question.but the idea is hanging there still..

AngryHippie

The actions within the universe are the pursuit of equilibrium.
The meaning of the Universe:....The Universe is infinity, and eternity.
The Big Bang (or the creation event we have been able to understand in our limit capacity as humans) happened because the probability of it happening is greater than zero.
(Infinite timescale, everything that is not definitely impossible will definitely happen, at least once)

The actions of all living things are to survive.
The meaning of life is to try and manipulate the universe in order to sustain life.
The existence of life, we know its not impossible (as we exist) therefore the probability of it occurring must be greater than zero.

Time is where it all falls apart regarding human understanding, we are subject to time flow....(flow, causality etc.) Therefore we cannot currently understand anything that happens outside of the flow of time as we understand it. Travel in time (backwards) as we know it must not be possible for human beings (as we currently exist), otherwise at least 1 human would have arrived back by now. (That's not to say that further in our evolutionary tree we develop that ability)

As for the notion that we are all one single consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, that is a nonsense. It's a deliberate Paradox by our old friend Jung to demonstrate how the only way to deal with a paradox is to make an assumption, and move past it. If your assumption is proved incorrect by later findings, then you go back to that point, and restart with a new hypothesis.

DoYouEvenLift

There is none. It's all irrelevant. Everything is a freak accident, especially human consciousness.

#YOLO

RichieO

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

There is none. It's all irrelevant. Everything is a freak accident, especially human consciousness.

#YOLO

I strongly disagree, the universe can only behave within the constraints of it's nature, there is no such thing as freak, only degrees of probability. I believe that highly evolved species are extremely rare, far more rare than the 'odds' would would dictate. I think SETI are wasting their time money and resources...

shanered

For this directly goes against the whole spirit of exploration which is arguably the main reason for the creation of civilization as we know it.

This for me would bring in the whole black swan arguement, where-by just because we haven't experienced or seen an entity is no reason to not search for it, because the act of searching may be in vain but sometimes and these are usually some of the greatest events in furthering our knowledge we find something, often not what we are looking for but something else, which is equally amazing.
You may describe it a luck, but lucky people are usually the ones looking for something or putting themselves into unknown territory.

Anyway, I would disagree SETI is a waste of time and resources, as if we found something it would be invaluable. Searching for ET on other planets, searching for marine life at the depths of the ocean, and other life forms wherever they may be found is important to the betterment and further understanding of ourselves in my opinion.

RichieO

There was a time I would have agreed wholeheartedly with you, 20,30,40,50 years ago, but after 65 years of study, I will stick with my current assessment, a bad analogy would be going to the beach, casting in a line and hoping to catch a whale, after all, it is the sea, we know there are whales in there, somewhere, but...... What's the chances....

shanered

In fairness, you definitely wont catch anything without casting a line, so its definitely increasing the probability of catching something.
I personnally would be up for throwing a line out and seeing if anything bites and dont see the act of trying as wasted, as once you try learn from the experience such that you need a longer line or need to try a different part of the river ment time you try....
Its a learning curve and worthwhile if you can take the results from each attempt and try improve and move on and try new unexplored areas and new techniques until something comes along which usually does thus new discoveries which have always came along and suprised us.

cnocbui

To reproduce.

Corkgirl210

to experience oneself's in their own expression/incarnation plan (soul) whilst linked to a higher source who is a combination of all individuals... (spirit)

Torakx

At the macro scale of the Universe, I would say there is no purpose, only results. Matter seems to me a negative in an otherwise calm universe, a disruption via vibration and resonance from a "big bang" event.
See Schopenhaurs "On the sufferings of mankind" for more related philosophy.
Visually I see sparks in a black room, spreading out and breaking up slowly, similar to entropy on matter.

At a human level, I guess a lot of the above posts cover it well.
Derida or maybe Heideggar might question what we mean when we say "life" and "meaning".

Pat D. Almighty

I don't think we'll ever know, but it's nice to speculate

jobeenfitz

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

I don't think we'll ever know, but it's nice to speculate

Well that's that. If D Almighty doesn't fekn know, the rest of us mere mortals may stop annoying our stupid little heads on the unattainable.

Boskowski

I don't think there is one. We're only a blip on the universe's timeline and on the cosmic scale our existence has no impact whatsoever. We'll be gone too before anyone or anything knows. Now break that down to an individual and then there's really nothing. I guess all one can do is simply be and not read too much into it.

Saipanne

It's the wrong question to begin with. Should life have a meaning?

Baked.noodle

If we assume life is seeking to become more complex physically and by extension intellectually, then life would seem to have a purpose. To adapt and flourish. When we, as a manifestation of life, look to find meaning it is only possible because life has found a way to develop the capacity and desire to look for meaning. The universe seems to make the likelihood of complex life a rarity, yet in our instance has provided an abundance of circumstances that we can exploit. I can only assume there is more to our existence than meets the eye, and perhaps the true meaning, if any, lies there.

Saipanne

Baked.noodle wrote: »

If we assume life is seeking to become more complex physically and by extension intellectually, then life would seem to have a purpose. To adapt and flourish. When we, as a manifestation of life, look to find meaning it is only possible because life has found a way to develop the capacity and desire to look for meaning. The universe seems to make the likelihood of complex life a rarity, yet in our instance has provided an abundance of circumstances that we can exploit. I can only assume there is more to our existence than meets the eye, and perhaps the true meaning, if any, lies there.

Given our extremely limited understanding of everything, that is quite a claim to base your hypothesis on.

Baked.noodle

You are right of course, we are only beginning to conceive and understand our surroundings. I'm sure relatively complex life could exist under the ice shell of Titan, but the circumstances that have cradled our development are possibly/probably rarer still.

Saipanne

Baked.noodle wrote: »

You are right of course, we are only beginning to conceive and understand our surroundings. I'm sure relatively complex life could exist under the ice shell of Titan, but the circumstances that have cradled our development are possibly/probably rarer still.

I suppose my point is, maybe our version of life is a rarity, but there are far more common types out there, that we have yet to encounter?

Baked.noodle

I like to be as optimistic about humanity as I can be, and I would be delighted if we could learn from and teach extraterrestrial life for the betterment of everyone, but I think for all the achievements we have accomplished and all the promise the future holds, I fear the distances are so great and time is relativistic to the point where we are too far away for any meaningful contact.

Saipanne

Baked.noodle wrote: »

I like to be as optimistic about humanity as I can be, and I would be delighted if we could learn from and teach extraterrestrial life for the betterment of everyone, but I think for all the achievements we have accomplished and all the promise the future holds, I fear the distances are so great and time is relativistic to the point where we are too far away for any meaningful contact.

Therefore we cannot make statements like the post of yours that I quoted, perhaps?

Baked.noodle

I find it mystical that the universe seems to be such a hostile place, yet furnishes man with the means for more bridges to over come. If these obstacles were simply too great to overcome, we would have not developed the required capacity to overcome them. Perhaps the obstacles would inhibit our intellectual development and we remain trapped under the ice of Titan. My original post was just speculation anyway, I wasn't stating that we are the center of the universe or anything. I was just remarking that our experience of intelligence leads us to search for meaning, and if this is a natural manifestation of the evolution of human life perhaps there is something in that search that life values. Perhaps it is integral to our evolution, not a by-product.

RichieO

For the most part, I would still go with my original post, trying to give meaning, purpose or reason to life is waste of time, it does not have any, or need any, everything we observe from a virus to blue whales is a result of - what is - where is - time - change...
I do not think the universe is hostile, any more than a volcanic eruption or an earthquake, even a comet or asteroid collision, is a natural event, in fact without all the past collisions we would not be here, and just one could remove us, it's not hostility, it's the nature of the universe.... And I believe advanced intelligent life forms are extremely rare...

Joe1919

Some existentialists would turn this whole discussion on its head in terms of seeing 'meaning' as more subjective than objective and as something essential to a healthy life and almost always sought.To quote Reinhold Niebuhr

Human vitality has two primary sources, animal impulse and confidence in the meaningfulness of human existence. The more human consciousness arises to full self-consciousness and to a complete recognition of the total forces of the universe in which it finds itself, the more it requires not only animal vitality but confidence in the meaningfulness of its world to maintain a healthy will-to-live. This confidence in the meaningfulness of life is not something which results from a sophisticated analysis of the forces and factors which surround the human enterprise. It is something which is assumed in every healthy life.

dr.fuzzenstein

Torakx wrote: »

What does it mean when saying, the universe is examining itself?
I have an interest in entropy and i'm always asking my friends doing physics to remind me of the process in relation to time.
Because i want to understand the foundations of what might be happening at the core of things that effects all other processes in the universe.

One of my vague memories to an answer to entropy, was that the uuniverse is constantly trying to break down energy, so it creates complex things that can break down faster(that is it's purpose). Hence we exist. But behind all that i then ask...WHY?
Why does it need to break down energy and what does that mean in relation to other philosophies.
really i only have a rough grasp of Nietzsches idea of "the Will" and that it might be possible to link it there with those foundational processes. Or I would love to see it linked.

Another interesting thought that came from that conversation on entropy is wether time can go backwards.
I had this mad idea, that if time(which doesn't exist but can be seen through entropy so kind of is entropy) can go forward and things can build and saythe universe was like a giant lung expanding, whatwould happen when it started to collapse? would "time" go backwards? Sounds silly now, i can see issues already with that question.but the idea is hanging there still..

Highly doubtful, for the same reason time doesn't go backwards when you reverse your car.
The theory is that after the Big Bang the Universe started expanding. At some stage the force of gravity will overtake the force of expansion and things will move the opposite way, until everything is back as a singularity and it can all happen all over again. An elegant theory, that unfortunately may not be true, because there is not enough matter in the Universe for this to happen. So we keep expanding until the universe is cold, dartk and dead. Depressing.
Why do we exist?
My own opinion ranges from Angels cast out of heaven all the way to agreeing with the great philosopher Didactylos who once said 'things just happen, what the hell'.
I doubt the Universe is examining itself, I would suggest it lacks the conscience to do so. If there is a maker, he simply set up the pins and rolled the ball. What happens once the ball is in motion is out of anyone's control.
That does not preclude a divine maker or the existence of an immortal soul, but the importance and influence of both have been blown way out of proportion.

dr.fuzzenstein

Baked.noodle wrote: »

I like to be as optimistic about humanity as I can be, and I would be delighted if we could learn from and teach extraterrestrial life for the betterment of everyone, but I think for all the achievements we have accomplished and all the promise the future holds, I fear the distances are so great and time is relativistic to the point where we are too far away for any meaningful contact.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/ideachev.html
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

For now, but give it a few centuries and I am confident that we will be able to traverse great distances.
We cannot picture it yet, the same way someone in the middle ages could not have pictured trains, planes and automobiles or when these inventions came along at first it was feared that any speed over 60 km/h would turn our brains to mush or that the sound barrier could never be broken.

DeclanJWhite

I like your answers there, Baked Noodle. That's a nice natural view of life. Reminds me of Marcus Aurelius's Meditations as well as Darwin and the general wonder-filled humility of biological thinking.

Gary L

There absolutely is no meaning to life. There is meaning to conciousness which; A) Life can get on without and Might be able to get on without life.

In fact there can be no meaning to anything prior to and apart from consciousness. Hence in the absence of some kind of God character acting as a conscious prime mover, there is definitively no meaning to the creation event or the macro universe in general.

Of all atheistic philosophers and writers I know of, only Nietzsche addressed this nihilistic insight with seriousness

"I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!" Neitzsche

Nino Brown

Is it really a mystery? The sole purpose of every organism on this planet is to reproduce. I know sometimes we like to think we're above all other organisms, but we're not, it's really that simple.

dr.fuzzenstein

I believe the question has been more than adequately answered by Monty Python.
Of course I could tell you, but no one would believe me...

cdgalwegian

Nino Brown wrote: »

Is it really a mystery? The sole purpose of every organism on this planet is to reproduce. I know sometimes we like to think we're above all other organisms, but we're not, it's really that simple.

At first blush, I would agree intuitively with such a grand sweeping statement. Of course, grand sweeping statements invite criticism, but with such an- let’s face it- unanswerable, and yet fundamental question, I’ll just throw in a few points.

In relation to organism reproduction in terms of evolution, the issue of purpose has to be tackled. Evolution has no purpose ‘in mind’. It is just a process, which retrospectively allows us to see what worked for a species in the past i.e. through virtue of its genes being passed on before dying. We graft our narrative intuitions on to what we see, and ‘look’ for reasons and explanations: the ‘why’s’ and the ‘how’s’ etc. All animals are genetically wired to look for or react to what we humans call ‘causes’, and attribute agency wherever possible; this is socially inculcated and reinforced from the off as well (to the physicalist, this is the basis of supernaturalism, and from there, religion).

The bigger question in relation to reproduction- tied to the assumption of purpose- is; How does one know which particular genetic trait is the ‘sole’ purpose, or even the ‘most important’? Genes are coded molecular instructions to make stuff for an organism. If there is anything that is ‘really that simple’, there it is. So in this regard, the real (physicalist) question is not what is the meaning of life, nor why did genes evolve, but how did genes evolve? No-one knows. But reproduction is a huge sticking point; there is a chicken-and-egg conundrum in genetics- which came first; metabolism or reproduction? Metabolism is the mainstay of an individual organism’s life, supported by structures such as organs etc, but reproduction is the mainstay of the continuation of life. The chances of metabolism and reproductive capacity occurring at the same time would be something like winning the lottery every week of your life. Not impossible, but come on now.

So we could rework the question; what is the higher genetic drive of life- to live, or pass on life? I think this is such a complex empirical project, it probably cannot be answered. It doesn’t stop geneticists from trying though, and more power to them.

The other side of the coin is the philosophical aspect of ‘meaning’. The term is bogged down in the quagmire of philosophy, but from the above, you might guess what my take on it is: There is no meaning to life, except that which we imbue into it. What meaning we imbue is affected cognitively by both our genes (which through genetic instructions build our brains) and the society within which we are born, so our meanings and values shift over time, and across cultures in a dynamic interactionist way. I would concur at this point with postmodernism; there is no grand narrative, including any meaning to life.

It might sound pessimistic, or even nihilistic, to take the view that there is no meaning to life, but that is only to look at one side of the coin. The other side is the lived cognition/ experience of life, in which we actively look for and imbue meaning in the world around us, whether or not we have supernatural/religious cognitive elements in the mix. Another way of saying this is that there is no meaning to/in life, except cognitively; but this is a rich life.

jobbridge4life

Is it not a little vain glorious to imagine that there is some special purpose to our lives? Especially one pre-ordained by the Universe? Especially considering what minuscule specs we are in the grand scheme of things. Not even specs.

Gary L

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Is it not a little vain glorious to imagine that there is some special purpose to our lives? Especially one pre-ordained by the Universe? Especially considering what minuscule specs we are in the grand scheme of things. Not even specs.

I think we lack a pre ordained purpose for sure. On the other hand reckoning the significance of our presence here based on physical scale is ludicrous. As if an intelligent civilization isnt a big deal. We might be the only one anywhere remember. Heard this sentiment from many scientists, It shows more than a little of the priestly instinct i think to try and inject a sense of humility where it manifestly does not belong.

DeclanJWhite

But how is it a big deal if everything gets obliterated by our Sun expanding. When that happens, we, and everything here, will be no deal.

Gary L

While we are around it's a big deal. Consciousness is the only thing that could possibly count for meaning.

DeclanJWhite

Yes, Gary, it's important to us, but as far as an indestructible value, it has none, it will perish with no one to remember anything, and seemingly that will continue without end, because whatever things change into from the Sun expanding, those new things will still be around. As it said in my huge 3rd year Science textbook, which my old teacher once belted me across the back of the head with, 'nothing can be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form into another'.

Newton got an apple on the head, I got clattered by a big book. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, but I've always known that.

dr.fuzzenstein

Interesting how activity on this thread increases with proximity to the weekend...



People have found their own personal meaning in one of those...
It's an interesting debate, since it can't be proven any which way.

DeclanJWhite

hehe that's true, Doc. Philosophers are notorious drinkers. What about Socrates' very dubious claim to fame that he could drink anyone under the table. That's more Irish than Greek!

dodgygeezer

It's funny, as I saw the title to this thread there is (42) written after it......

DeclanJWhite

haha :-) well we better stop there - oops, I've spoiled it :-D

DeclanJWhite

lol that must've been funny to see that alright, truth at least as strange as fiction! :-D

dr.fuzzenstein

dodgygeezer wrote: »

It's funny, as I saw the title to this thread there is (42) written after it......

Don't panic. As long as you have a towel, you will be alright.
Personally I think a universe without purpose would be a monumental joke, sadly no one will be there to laugh at it, making it even more tragic.
I hope there is a purpose, because we come into this world and aim to learn, better ourselves and hopefully improve humankind as a whole. But the existence of premiership footballers and investment bankers seems to fly in the face of that theory.
Also, the fact that mankind plays out the same conflicts over and over and over again without ever learning the futility of violence and conflict is not an encouraging sign.

Torakx

Maybe we humans formed to appreciate said joke/tragedy

DavidRamsay99

The meaning of life is suffering.
Everything humans do or rather should do is with the aim limiting our suffering, the suffering of others and the suffering of creatures.
We can claim that everything else is subjective but suffering is not. It is objective. From that starting point we can start making sense of the world.
We know that nature sucks because it is inherently wasteful.
Countless species and countless individual organism are born suffer and die.
Humans appear to be the only species that understands this concept and has tried to escape nature and control it with varied degrees of success.
If a human life is to be judged it is judged on its contribution to eliminating suffering.
We therefore honor explorers, warriors, scientists, inventors, politicians and revolutionaries who aim was to push the envelope of human endeavor to make the world a better place.
Sailors sailed the seas and found new lands, warriors and revolutionaries brought down tyrants and kings, scientists discovered new cures and labor-saving devices, politicians have pushed the interests of their supporters and voters and artists have created beauty.
In the future we may control the seas and weather and tides and technology may allow us to achieve immortality and explore the furthest reaches of the universe.
The aim of humans since the beginning of thought has been to change our being and become like God.
The story of Adam and Eve is about eating the Apple and leaving behind nakedness and ignorance.
Religion tries to explain suffering as our lot and our punishment for seeking to usurp God.
What suffering is is a kick in the pants to break free from our shackles and reach higher and higher.
God is not to be worshiped but rather is who we want to be.
All seeing all powerful and all knowing and all beneficent.
The first man to fire a cannon probably blew himself to pieces but now every housewife in America can conceivably have a pistol on her purse.
Pioneering climbers have been welded to the frozen rocks of mountains to reach peaks which are now surmounted by radio masts.
Sailors perished from scurvy or drowned when their frail wooden ships were smashed by oceans waves paving the way for vast ships to carry refrigerated food and container goods around the globe.
A monk in his cell labored with ink and parchment so that today this post could be typed on a laptop.
Every aspect of our lives can about through the suffering of others long dead.
The human race exists because our ape ancestors fought other apes and wild animals for supremacy.
The single cell organism we trace our ancestry to reproduced as did all the countless generations right up until your parents.
Think of all the dirty nappies and the sleepless nights your parents, grandparents, great grand parents and so on into the mists of time endured?
They endured all the drudgery because they believed or hope for a better life for those who followed them.
We have a choice between despair and suicide or childlessness or continuing the fight.

dr.fuzzenstein

Nature is OK with me, since it is not intentionally cruel. But nearly all the sh*tty things in my life have one source: other people.
Until we evolve out of our caveman stage, this will not change. We aim to control, keep others down, assert ourselves over them, gather resources and mates. A billionaire is no different to the guy with the biggest cave, having others do his bidding, gathering the most food and the most females. Very few have noble dispositions.

MaxWig

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Nature is OK with me, since it is not intentionally cruel. But nearly all the sh*tty things in my life have one source: other people.
Until we evolve out of our caveman stage, this will not change. We aim to control, keep others down, assert ourselves over them, gather resources and mates. A billionaire is no different to the guy with the biggest cave, having others do his bidding, gathering the most food and the most females. Very few have noble dispositions.

It's because we've evolved out of our caveman stage that we seek to assert ourselves over others.