posted
If anyone dobies this "The porpoise of life" you will get a virtual wedgie.
A long departed Hatracker, when he was quite young, told me the purpose of life was to continute.
Then there is the biological definition. Feed. Grow. Reproduce.
The animal survival imperatives: Survival of self, survival of kin, survival of kind.
Then there is the ethics matrix I am working on for my monkey man island story. For the self: Independence, Integrity, Initiative. For others: Concern, Compassion, Contribution. I thought it was quite cool. Then they all have evil flip sides. It's kind of the humanist version of Faith hope and charity.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The purpose of life is to simply exist. To go beyond that delves into the purposes of human civilization, but that is another question.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For you, or for Him/Her? How do you satisfy yourself, and how do you think that affects God's opinion of your life's purpose? Do you believe in destiny? Fate?
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
JH, do you believe in God? I'm being serious now, I don't remember. I thought you described yourself as an atheist Jew. If you are atheist, it seems like you must have had a good reason to choose that.
Happiness? Well, that does depend on you.
[ January 11, 2005, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like something to be above me, in the form of a deity. Something unchallengeable. I don't believe in fate or in destiny, though I can relate to them from a believer's point of view, since I once was a believer.
Description impecable!
[ January 11, 2005, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strange then that you would ask someone other than yourself about purpose and the definition of happiness. I know I don't have all the answers.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's philosophy. I want this thread to thrive.
Happiness is subjective; thus, it is ideal that you try and 'know' the 'purity' of the concept (Plato).
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
In what sense? Incidentally, I have always thought that the purpose of the Gospel of Christ (and the teachings of many other religions) is to overcome the "survival of the fittest" law that is undeniably the ruling force on the planet. To impliment a higher law, a harder law, lived by few, lived by choice. I suppose Humanism is a version of this that doesn't necessitate the existance Supreme Being.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If human is divine, and created in the shape of God (as said in Genesis), the "survival of the species" seems so shallow! God is, after all, infinitely profound.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Final Fantasy (the movie) says we are all a little piece of Gaia's spirit manifest in the flesh, seeking understanding through experience. I thought that was interesting.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't believe in the divine, what does it mean for humans to have any divine aspect to them?
afr mentioned hope and fulfillment. That is a thought. Develop a hope, fulfill it, develop a new one etc. That is happiness. Many hopes go unfulfilled.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Divine is something believers believe in, I'd assume. So, obviously the question is, how do believers relate evolution with religion.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some might say our purpose is defined by our desires.
There seems to be differing proportions of desire in people to live comfortably and pleasurably, to seek truth or understanding, to connect to fellow beings, to have courage in the face of adversity, to grow with change.
In other words, there is a part of most of us that just want to be popular and have the most stuff. But it is certainly not our only desire, whether we recognize it or not.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religion and other ideologies seek to lift humanity above the base laws of evolution. That is a good thing. And perhaps that would be God's purpose for us also?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Passing now to the theory of evolution as a philosophical speculation, the history of the plant and animal kingdoms upon our globe is but a small part of the history of the entire earth. Similarly, the geological development of our earth constitutes but a small part of the history of the solar system and of the universe. The theory of evolution as a philosophical conception considers the entire history of the cosmos as an harmonious development, brought about by natural laws. This conception is in agreement with the Christian view of the universe. God is the Creator of heaven and earth. If God produced the universe by a single creative act of His will, then its natural development by laws implanted in it by the Creator is to the greater glory of His Divine power and wisdom. St. Thomas says: "The potency of a cause is the greater, the more remote the effects to which it extends."[b] (Summa c. Gent., III, c. lxxvi); and Suarez: [b]"God does not interfere directly with the natural order, where secondary causes suffice to produce the intended effect" (De opere sex dierum, II, c. x, n. 13). In the light of this principle of the Christian interpretation of nature, the history of the animal and vegetable kingdoms on our planet is, as it were, a versicle in a volume of a million pages in which the natural development of the cosmos is described, and upon whose title-page is written: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
....
(4) Human Evolution vs. Plant and Animal Evolution
To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man's body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine (see AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, SAINT, under V. Augustinism in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God.
The science summary at the top is, I think, out of date. Nothing I've heard in the past decade changes my philosophical take on the subject, because for purposes of developing it, I've assumed single ancestor evolution all the way through to the human body.
Maybe trying to understand the purpose of life is a big time waster that takes away from DAOC or CoH.
I think most people are tying to understand both the purpose of life AND the purpose of their individual life.
I also think most people are caught offguard by death, come to realize that time is passing too quickly, and die an unromantic death before their quest is complete.
Which leads me to this question: If you are on a quest you know you cannot complete, is it worth the effort? IE. Does the experience of searching for God and proof in the divine have merit that justifies an objective we can never achieve before death?
Purpose of life? I don't know. Not knowing the purpose does not detract from the happiness I feel.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I believe that that quest continues after this life, we taking with us the experiences here to help us along that quest, I think it is *definitely* worthwhile.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend not to make the separation between "religion" and "the rest of life." My religious beliefs are not abstract philosophical things to consider in meditation. I strongly believe there is a purpose in life, and not just human life but in all existence, and that the things I believe in "religiously" have a huge impact on everything that exists.
You've touched on a very interesting thought---regardless of how things evolved or were created, one all-important question is whether there is a purpose to all of it.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I was reading this morning I came to an understanding of a question I had had for a long time about God and evolution as you call it or development as I think of it.
I don't think religion is any more at odds with evolution than left-wing humanism.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frimpong: I mean caring for those less fortunate or able than you rather than seizing their resources to be used for you and yours. I think Religious traditionalists and Humanists both feel there should be more to life than the animal struggle. Or do I have that wrong?
[ January 11, 2005, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"42" was never the meaning of life. "42" was the answer to the ultimate question of life. Huge difference.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think Religious traditionalists and Humanists both feel there should be more to life than the animal struggle.
I think this is more appropriate:
"I think Religious traditionalists[read: judeo-christians] and Humanists both feel there is more to being than the "animal struggle."
I agree, especially since I don't know how the world reveals itself to an animal. For the record, I think it's ridiculous to look at the behavior of chimps or coyotes or lobsters as measures of how people ought to behave.
posted
I think that what makes life so special is the fact that everyone's own purpose of life is different.
Some people live for otherworldly reasons, which translates in different ways. Some live merely to understand themselves, some try and improve the world and through that themselves, others live for personal pleasure. If everyone lived for the same reason, humanity would be very dull.
Perhaps, then, the purpose of life is to give life a purpose and live it to the fullest.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always thought that if the answer was "42", the question couldn't have been very impressive. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it meant to be so, though? Are you supposed to decide what your purpose is?
"Meant" implies that there is someone "meaning." As an atheist, I don't believe that there is someone who has defined a "meaning" for us. As a result, purpose is an objectively illusory concept, though subjectively apparently quite real. A few years back on this site I coined the phrase "virtually true" to refer to things that weren't transcendently or objectively facts, but that nonetheless were true for humans. Purpose, I would venture, fits into that category. Life has no "why" to it, but human beings have evolved to crave reason and purpose, so it is necessary to choose a purpose in order to feel psychologically satisfied... hence my statement that the purpose of life is whatever you decide it is. The purpose isn't somehow inferior, I'd argue, just because you chose it. Quite the opposite.
[ January 11, 2005, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that another way of saying, "Do what makes you happy."
I take issue with all of the side-ways hedonism, even when it comes in the guise of misunderstood free will because all of it undermines a sense of responsibility beyond one's own pleasure.
posted
But I would challenge you to prove that there exists a transcendental responsibility toward society or others... I personally have chosen goals and purposes that include such responsibilities, but there is nothing inherent in the universe that says that's how it *should* be.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:there is nothing inherent in the universe that says that's how it *should* be.
It's in the universe, it's in the human situation. We are a being that makes beings for other beings. Every person is an bull in a china shop, and every other piece of china is a bull in it's own china shop. Everything we do or create comes with responsibilities in virtue of the fact that we introduce it into the world. Children are prime examples. Guns and cigarettes and books are other examples.
Our rights and decisions allow us to consider our responsibilities, they don't give us license to do whatever gives us pleasure. And since only a smidgen of our responsibilities arise out of anything we have completely created, we would better understand the dignity in man if went about the business of considering the responsibilites we are always already beset with rather than creating new ones for the sake of novelty.
Our being is one that is subject to an onslaught of responsibility and neglect. The good thing is that we have guides, art and some religion clarifies there important and trivial responsibilities so that we do not haphazardly live an indignified life of ill-informed neglect.
David, you are a teacher, from all that I've seen, the problem is that kids and parents don't understand responsibility as prior to and independent of their choosing.
posted
I also think that that's how it *should* be. I have chosen to live as if that were a basic cosmic law. But it isn't. I just want to see whether you'll agree with me that, when you come right down to it, responsibility is a concept arising from the human condition and from milennia of human ethical systems, *not* from some transcendental Truth-with-a-capital-T that is woven into the fabric of the universe.
[edit]To respond to what you added, yes, I think people need to be taught that responsibility is prior to them and beyond their electing to dispose of it... it is elevated to purpose by the human society they live in and the traditions of centuries, that's all I'd add to clarify. There is no law of the conservation of responsibility burned into the warp and weave of timespace.[/edit]
[ January 11, 2005, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The purpose of life was so that millions of years of evolution could finally, through trial and error and patient testing, produce the finest of all human creations: me.
Or possibly Ralphie's rack. Theologies differ.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just want to see whether you'll agree with me that, when you come right down to it, responsibility is a concept arising from the human condition and from milennia of human ethical systems, *not* from some transcendental Truth-with-a-capital-T that is woven into the fabric of the universe.
You mean it isn't a law of physics? Yeah, you are right. But as everything we know about the Universe is through the lense of human knowledge, I don't want to make claims where responsibility may or may not be woven into. Once I thought about it, it was as obvious as arithmetic. A father is a father with respect to his responsibility to his child. Students are students with respect to their responsibilities to their studies. Doctors are doctors with respect to their responsibilities to their patients. And when they neglect their responsibilities, they are not behaving virtue of the property that makes them fathers, students, or doctors. It's the same with people, people are people in virtue of their attention to their responsibilities, therein lies the dignity of the human condition. That we can neglect are responsibilities is also within our power, but we call doctors, students, and father who neglect their responsibilities bad doctors, students, and fathers.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But it is certainly not our only desire, whether we recognize it or not.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
