My title, your talk. May this be a long, fruitful, Landmarked thread.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Purpose? What gave you that idea? Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Essence?
I got the idea from listening to Albinoni for too long.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
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.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Evolution does give religion a hard time. What about the great Greek philosophers?
I liked continuation, though.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Whatever you decide it is.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Is it meant to be so, though? Are you supposed to decide what your purpose is?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
My personal purpose of life is to glorify God
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
To Jon- Sure, if you want to. :continues with buffing nails:
[ January 11, 2005, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The purpose of life is to simply exist. To go beyond that delves into the purposes of human civilization, but that is another question.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
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?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
To be happy.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Attend to your responsibilities.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
What is happiness? (Someone replace my job here, I need to go to bed.)
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
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 ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
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 ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
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.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Happiness is hope and fulfillment.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
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).
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
42.
Oh dangit, it wasn't a question. Alright, let's try this...
Why does life NEED a purpose?
42.
Yes, much much better.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Why is life?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Evolution does give religion a hard time.
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.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
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.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
"Vivo Per Lei", can someone translate the song's words? (By Andrea Bocelli.)
"Vivo Per Lei la'Musica."
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
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.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
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.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Satisfy your growing ambition.
Divine is something believers believe in, I'd assume. So, obviously the question is, how do believers relate evolution with religion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
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.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
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?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, obviously the question is, how do believers relate evolution with religion.
Evolution is the mechanism by which God produced life.
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.
Dagonee
[ January 11, 2005, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Does there need to be a purpose?
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.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
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.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
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.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
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.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't think religion is any more at odds with evolution than left-wing humanism.
Do you understand left-wing humanism? And by religion, I assume you mean the big three Faith-based religions.
[ January 11, 2005, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
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 ]
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
I think that it took 20 posts for somebody to say "42" says something about the present geek-status of Hatrack.
*shakes head in dismay*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"42" was never the meaning of life. "42" was the answer to the ultimate question of life. Huge difference.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
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.
[ January 11, 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I've always thought that if the answer was "42", the question couldn't have been very impressive. Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
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 ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
"Men are, that they might have joy." 2 Ne, 2:25 Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
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.
[ January 11, 2005, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
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.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
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.
[ January 11, 2005, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
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 ]
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
DaG, they were waiting for the guy who suggested the "Don't Panic" comment for the hatrack-is-down page to say it.
Yes Tom, 42 is the answer to the ultimate question about life, the universe, and everything.
The fun is simply answering random questions with 42 and see if the answer fits. The joy is in trying to find the questions.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
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.
[ January 11, 2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
quote: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.
Is this directed at the "men are that they might have joy"?
The meaning of that statement in the context of this discussion that we are that we might have free will, not just to choose for ourselves but to act and not be acted upon.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Irami, I think perhaps we may agree. Do you not think? Pursuing money, status, power, fame, and stuff like that doesn't really bring joy in the end. Those things all end up being pretty empty once you achieve them. True joy comes in other ways. Yet I do believe the point of existence is for us to discover these ways and gain and give the joy they bring.
[ January 11, 2005, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: 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.
Out of curiosity, and as a philosophical question, why would humans evolve a deep, abiding longing for purpose in their lives? Any thoughts?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Irami, because of the way the word "joy" is used in the scriptures, and most particularly the way it is used in this chapter, I think Mormons have developed a more specific meaning of the word for our "group lexicon" that is different than they way it is commonly used. The scripture specifically says that a person cannot know joy if they don't know misery. It says that Adam and Eve in their garden paradise were incapable of joy.
Obviously, the way it is used in these scriptues denotes a very different meaning from "pleasure". It seems to be a bittersweet mixture of both pleasure and sorrow, perhaps like the rich and complex feelings a parent has over their children in their struggles and successes.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
beverly, the simplest answer is that they didn't. Humans evolved an ability for forming very complex, abstract thoughts, and a very arguable natural consequence (or instigator, it doesn't really matter in this case) of that ability is a "thirst" for new and interesting things, which would be pretty much what you stated.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Some might say it is the "primate" in us. The curiosity. Was it Nevin's aliens that kept referring to us as intelligent monkeys?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Judging from the majority of this thread, I'd have to say the purpose of life is to question and ponder the purpose of life.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Sounds good to me!
*ponders*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Teshi?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"
"I think so brain, but how would we get the chickens to wear nylons?"
I wonder when the WB will release Animaniacs and Pinky & The Brain on DVD. I await the day.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Judging from the majority of this thread, I'd have to say the purpose of life is to question and ponder the purpose of life.
You are right, in a sense. Questioning appropriate questions may not lead to a direct answer, but it will shed light on more trivial matters, seperating what is important from what is irrelevant.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: 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.
I'm a staunch ChrisBridgestian, until the day I die.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Hedonism.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
beverly, what I've come to understand pondering this thread is that joy is not in the action. Joy is in having made the choice to do the action with one's free will.
Free will is only possible with the possibility of sin, which is only possible with the Savior, which is only possible with the Fall.
That is to say, I think it is possible to have joy without having sorrows and pain and so forth. I know people whose whole life has seemed rosy and trouble free, but I don't judge them as incapable of joy or faith or charity.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Woohoo!!! Thanks JH for this thread! I remember there was a thread like this a while ago but I was too busy to post in it, so I'm glad I have the opportunity to do it now.
First of all, I don't believe there's a God, destiny or purpose to this Universe. So while I'm not going to search for what my True purpose in life is (there isn't any), I'll gladly set myself goals, whether short-time or long-time ones.
My life-time goal is to become content with who I am. That doesn't mean I'd be at my best, 'cause I think there's always room for better. Rather it means that all the decision I'd make at a certain point in my life should be according to the knowledge I posses at that moment. Whether something proves good or bad in the long run is a totally different thing. I'm very far away from my goal now, still doing things out of laziness, because I'm sad / mad / plain dumb, but hey, if I'd attend my goal this early in my life what fun would there be left for the rest of it?!
quote: why would humans evolve a deep, abiding longing for purpose in their lives?
Too much time on our hands! Seriously speaking, I think it's our desire to define and cathegorize everything. We defined "purpose", now we can't see a life without purpose when everything in life has its little purpose. It's too much for our self-centered personalities! "What, you mean there's no purpose to my life?! Oh, that's shocking! No way, there must be a purpose!" In my opinion this goes very well together with the creation of religions: we created them in order to feel, if not important, at least part of something important. And how can you be important if your life is just a blink in the lifetime of the Universe?! Truth is - for me, at least - that our lifes are important only to us and to some people we're influencing. Like with waves, the farther you go from the originating point, the less energy the wave has = the less important our influence is on "distant" people.
quote: ... we call doctors, students, and fathers who neglect their responsibilities bad doctors, students, and fathers.
Bad or good don't really mean that much to me anymore. "Bad doctor" would be someone who doesn't perform very well as a doctor, but his (her) quality as a man (woman) isn't defined only by that, is it? Also a "good doctor" can have his moments of blindess and mistreat someone. Is he a "bad doctor" for that person? Yes. In general? How many mistreatments does it take to be labeled a bad doctor?! Again, we give the definitions that suit us most: if he treated me bad he's a bad doctor no matter how many other people say he's good.
I think most of the people here read the Dune series - if not, read them now!! The Bene Gesserit in those books were the first group to actually have a long-time plan, and not only for themselves, but for others too! How many of you have plans for your "next generation"? How about for the whole "next generation"? I think nowadays political leaders have the biggest power to think for the future, but I also think that most if not all of them tend to plan for the duration of their presidency - and probably for the next elections if they can still candidate. Is it even worth it to think further ahead?! I think yes, especially now when we have such a power over our environment and our lives in general. And I also think there's something to the thought that we become more and more comfortable with our lives and we're less and less likely to "naturally" evolve. In this case I think the only way not to stagnate and die of boredom is to take evolution in our own hands. And by evolution I don't mean growing a third hand in order to type faster or growing a nice pair of wings - though that would be really, really awesome, wouldn't it? - but rather about teaching ourselves how to use more of our bodies' abilities, wether mental or physical.
quote: Our rights and decisions allow us ...
I think that "rights" are a very human concept, and an almost useless one too. We talk about guaranteeing certain rights but even when those rights CAN be guarded we don't do it and instead go on with our own business. These rights are a very nice idea, but unfortunately we are waaay far from it right now and don't seem to work very hard in that direction. Oh well, maybe the generations to come will do more. Or they'll just stay in front of the 3D TV and eat new highly nutritious chips made in fully automated factories...
So anyone want to start a Bene Gesserit with me? You know, to try to get humanity on the right track? Subscriptions cost 100 USD and shall be sent to me to the address bene.gesserit@chapterhouse.com. And I volunteer for the role of leader of the guild too, I wouldn't want to burden anybody with so much responsability! Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
Beverly wrote :
quote: 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.
I haven't notice that, but it's the current idea i have about the purpose of the life. I have a Catholic education and i followed the catholic practice until the age of 13. After my 13th birthday, I would have a move back about what i believe.
I interested me about others religions and believes. And at the age of 20, I began to think we are all a member of something. We can call that "Spirit" or "God". And the purpose of the our lifes is to make experiences. When we die, maybe we reinteger this to collect the experiences.
I know that my thought is not achieve and i must work on this idea longer. The thought about the purpose of the life have many way. I choose this way. But i know i may choose a wrong one.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Choobak, in my opinion you sum up pretty well WHY we want to believe in the existence of something greater than us:
quote: And at the age of 20, I began to think we are all [a] members of something. We can call that "Spirit" or "God". And the purpose of [the] our lifes is to make experiences. When we die, maybe we reinteger this to collect the experiences.
I'd like to believe that, but I'm quite skeptical by nature. I've also seen this idea in many SF books and it sounds reasonable IF there would be a purpose to life or to this Universe.
quote: But i know i may choose a wrong one.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
You're on the right path! Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
As Mr Card Wrote in the children of spirit, Human can produce lot of idea which 80% are wrong, but the 20% ones survive and permit to build other ideas.
That one point i like in his work. And Why i like his novels.
[ January 12, 2005, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Choobak ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
quote:but we call doctors, students, and father who neglect their responsibilities bad doctors, students, and fathers
Sure, but where this breaks down (as far as making any sorts of sweeping statements about the specifics of responsibilities, even given that the nearly universal meme of "responsibility" has diffused itself throughout human society as part and parcel of human purpose) is that each societal group tends to define responsibilities (or carve up responsibilities) in different ways: the dharma of the Brahmana caste of Hindu society may overlap with what Catholic Mexicans believe are the responsibilities of their priests, but both differ wildly from what the Comanche bands insisted were the responsibilities of powerful puhakatu (power-possessors, the most important of which Americans sadly have called "medicine men").
So, while it may seem useful to say that "living up to one's responsibilities" is the purpose of life, it still brings us back to the lack of a transcendental definition or description of those responsibilities.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
David Bowles: That's true, I haven't even thought of that when I gave my own answer. I guess I'm just not international enough yet! Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Yeah (not to knock you or anyone else), that's our number-one problem when making sweeping statements about humans: cultural myopia. I do think, however, that we can recognize universals that give atheists and others constructing their own morality a basis from which to work.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Trisha: I have never thought of it that way. Of course, my feelings about this come in part from the strong influence "My Turn on Earth" had on my as a child. The song "Opposition" spoke to me. It just "rang true". No life is without pain, though some certainly have more than others.
I don't think that our lives have to be tragic for us to know joy, it is more about the opposition that comes naturally to mortal life. On the contrary, I think many lives on this planet have been so tragic that the person has not had much, if any, joy at all. But of course, when one believes that this life is not the end, there is certainly the capacity for joy after death.
As for the free will, it is arguable that Adam and Eve didn't yet have free will because they were not yet in a state of opposition--experiencing only the good and sweet. But they were enticed by the tree and faced temptation before that point. So in my mind, they had free will already. What they lacked was the understanding that comes through experience. And I believe that is where joy comes from also.
Perhaps our perspectives on this are more similar than dissimilar.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Haven't read the whole thread (bad Megan!), but I can tell you that the question to which the answer was 42 (i.e., the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything), was:
What is 9 times 7?
(although, it might have been, "what is 7 times nine?" now that I think of it).
But pardon me, I was born to speak all mirth and no matter.
[ January 12, 2005, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote: not to knock you or anyone else
Well, don't you worry about it! I'm very much aware of my cultural myopia. I've tried to correct it since coming to France and starting posting on Hatrack, but I'm still far away from "the perfect cultural gentleman"... Even though I had a glimpse of other European cultures, of the American one, and an even smaller one about the Morrocan culture I still find utterly strange and different others like the Chinese, Japannese, Indian, etc. I know there's really no easy way out of this, just patient learning through direct interaction with the other cultures.
Edit: This is why I said some time ago in another thread that I don't think we're mature enough to form a world-state just yet.
[ January 12, 2005, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, no, it wasn't. That is the flawed version of the original question that was left imprinted in Arthur's brain; it is almost certainly not the actual question, since the universe did not end after it was discovered.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
bev- I'm not familiar with that play. I saw it once but I only remember the flashlight song. I understand the general idea of opposition. One interesting idea I read was that opposition will not cease after death. It will be much easier to withstand the kind of temptation we experience here due to the removal of doubt, but unless we cease to have free will, won't there still be opposition?
P.S. I think my point is that I'm less willing to concede that tribulations come from God than the average Mormon. Looking over the Book of Mormon Index, tribulations never come directly from God, but doing his will may cause one to pass through them. Also looking at James 1, particularly versus 7,8 and 13, it seems that there is a very fine line in the attitude of enduring trials. We can't do it with the expectation of reward.
[ January 12, 2005, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: bev- I'm not familiar with that play. I saw it once but I only remember the flashlight song. I understand the general idea of opposition.
I was "raised on" My Turn on Earth and Saturday's Warrior--for better or worse. The songs did shape my thinking in a lot of ways--the things that appealed to me or made sense to me.
quote:One interesting idea I read was that opposition will not cease after death. It will be much easier to withstand the kind of temptation we experience here due to the removal of doubt, but unless we cease to have free will, won't there still be opposition?
Actually, I look at it about the opposite. I think there will be much less opposition after death, but there will still be doubt. Obviously there will be the fact that we still exist after our mortal frame is crumbling in the ground, and that will effect things, but I think things will still be far from obvious. Just my own personal opinion. And I think one of the reasons it will be harder to overcome our weaknesses there is the lack of natural opposition that comes with not having a mortal body. I think opposition that will exist then will come in the form of "hell", which I believe to be an inner state of mind more than anything else.
quote:P.S. I think my point is that I'm less willing to concede that tribulations come from God than the average Mormon.
I don't think tribulations necessarily come from God either. I think they happen because they happen. I think God is more interested in how we will deal with what comes than orchistrating life to be difficult for us. I believe God intervenes (though not always) when His children exercise faith, but rarely, if ever, at any other time.
[ January 12, 2005, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
(oops, I edite above) But we will feel for anyone who does not obtain salvation similarly to to how we feel for those who perish physically in this life. One example of how opposition will be different.
(Sorry folks if we are getting too specifically Mormony for you. But I feel the existence of Satan is as salient as the existence of God. If you don't believe in Satan, there really isn't much need to believe in God.)
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
maybe can we believe in something which have the two parts : Satan and God ?... A Yin and Yang spirit...
[ January 13, 2005, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: Choobak ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I do think it's true that Satan merely fills a role that God allows to exists. But that is like saying Bush is accountable for what Cheney does. In a political sense, perhaps, but Cheney has free will. This is just an analogy.
[ January 12, 2005, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Careful with Yin and Yang. Yin is Yang's opposite, but I don't believe that they neccesarily OPPOSE one another.
It's more like husband and wife rather than good vs. evil.
I think.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think that essentially, that is they thing everything comes back to, Choobak: Good and Evil, Dark and Light, God and Satan, Ying and Yang, Individual and Community, Chaos and Order, Hell and Heaven, Passion and Reason (I could go on...) The duality of the human race is undeniable.
And, in the end, although all of us would like to be on the side of the light and the God and the Heaven, we all end up with some sort of balance.
EDIT: I'm sure you're right, ScottR. But that is sort of the point- somethings are in opposition, some go together, but again, half way is a good place to be.
[ January 12, 2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Yang is building and active forces. Pure Yang is destructive and unstable. Pure ying is like absolute zero. Most elements are considered some blend of the two.
Interestingly, on the classic ba gua they are not directly opposite each other though increasingly people who present images of the ba gua get that wrong. That is because if you visualize the tai chi thingy, pure yang is the white ahead of the black dot while pure yin is the black trailing the white dot. I thought that was so frequin cool when I first understood it.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
There are plenty of paradoxes in Christianity that reflect the yin and yang. To save your life you must lose it. To lead you must be the servant of all. To pass the gate of heaven you must humble (debase) yourself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If you don't believe in Satan, there really isn't much need to believe in God."
I find this a really, really depressing worldview. How can you live like that without throwing yourself off a bridge?
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I realize a lot of churches don't believe in Satan. Marianne Williamson and a lot of modern spiritualists teach against a belief in Satan.
The thing about Satan is we don't believe he has cosmic powers that exceed our own, though he does have access to more information and has generally been around longer. Some religions feel he has the special power of angels but we read "created a little lower than the angels" differently.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Going with my train of thought (that I'm developing now as we speak) from above. I would see Satan as being an inextricable part of the God, should you believe in a God or Gods. Satan is just a natural pairing for God.
[ January 12, 2005, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Teshi, I can see your point. You'll like this: I was thinking about the evil ring in LOTR and what does it do? Conceal the wearer. So it's very relevant to the issue of Satan's invisibility in our modern worlds.
This is giving me new insights into all those bible stories where one son goes wrong. Especially Abraham. We focus on the pain of him almost having to sacrifice Isaac. But it seems like having to cast out Ishmael would have been painful as well.
[ January 12, 2005, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: "If you don't believe in Satan, there really isn't much need to believe in God."
I find this a really, really depressing worldview. How can you live like that without throwing yourself off a bridge?
I find it not only depressing, but contrary to what Christianity has taught for the last 2000 years. Christianity, in its classical form, is NOT a dualistic religion, Satan and God are NOT equal and opposing forces.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I've said in several different ways that they are not equal. THough I guess agreeing with the yin yang idea might imply that. But if there is no evil, why would God be necessary? I don't believe in God because he is necessary. I just think the Age of reason banished Satan first, and God naturally followed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But if there is no evil, why would God be necessary?"
That question makes no more sense than "if there is a God, why is evil permitted?"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
dkw said succinctly what I was going to say about Christianity and dualism.
I'm smart by association, see?
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
It's a valid question Tom. I think it is so that we can have free will.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* But your first question also presumes that evil requires a physical embodiment in order to exist. Why?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, I think Good and Evil pre-exist God and the Devil. So I'm immune to your questions.
Nyaaah.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Here's an interesting passage from the Book of Mormon that illustrates LDS beliefs about God and Satan, good and evil.
******* Moroni 7:12-17
12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Technically Satan doesn't have a body (in this worldview). He doesn't think he is bad. He thinks God is conceited and is just trying to persuade everyone of that. The thing Satan doesn't get is that if he had his way, he would be running things instead of God. So in my opinion his hatred is personal and not principle driven.
Posted by SausageMan (Member # 5134) on :
Evil is simply disobedience of God. Like a shadow is just the absence of light. Darkness doesn't need embodiment like the light does.
The angels had one opportunity to choose or reject God. 1/3 of them, Satan included, chose to reject God. Adam and Eve likewise had one opportunity, when the serpent tempted them at the tree. They chose to reject Him, and that's where the world is stuck today.
Personally I love philosophy, but I find it rather tiresome to read this topic. Lots of speculation and uncertainty. I personally know the truth that God created us so that He might love us, and we are meant to return the same. I can't imagine living without that knowledge permeating my existence.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Why does light need an embodiment more than dark?
Posted by SausageMan (Member # 5134) on :
Uh, just 'cause?
I don't know, that's kind of the way the world runs, isn't it? You don't turn on a lamp to make darkness, but you can't have light without a source.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Technically speaking, light and heat exist, cold and dark don’t – they are the absence of light and heat.
Posted by SausageMan (Member # 5134) on :
And please note that I just used that as an example. We could get into some seriously confusing arguments concerning "evil as the absence of good" and such.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That has been and is a well accepted definition of evil in some theological circles. Popularized by St. Augustine in the fourth century. (Based on neo-platonist philosophy)
[ January 12, 2005, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think you get around the good/evil dependence if you understand good as a matter of propriety and evil as unconcerned with or a deviation from what is proper. We would need to understand belonging and responsibility and those seem to have been lost under the onslaught of salvation religions.
[ January 12, 2005, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
True, but again I never said Satan is a self-created entity. Merely an existing entity that chooses to take advantage where God is absent. I would submit that God chooses not to be everywhere all at once. Again, so that we could have free will.
Posted by SausageMan (Member # 5134) on :
dkw: Right, and I believe that too, but not because darkness in real life is the absence of light.
I hate people who try to use metaphors to "teach" things. That's why I clarified that is was just an example.
[ January 12, 2005, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: SausageMan ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Didn't your momma ever tell you not to say you hate people? Posted by SausageMan (Member # 5134) on :
Yes
[ January 12, 2005, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: SausageMan ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: It will be much easier to withstand the kind of temptation we experience here due to the removal of doubt, but unless we cease to have free will, won't there still be opposition?
I think we will still have free will, but the potency to act upon things and to be acted upon will be greatly diminished. I think that is one of the reasons we will look upon the long absence from our bodies as a bondage. And I think the only reason it would be easier to resist temptation is because so many of our temptations come because of the needs and desires of the physical body.
D&C 138: 50
50 For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.
I think Satan is evidence of the fact that we had free will even before this life and that in such a situation you are bound to have some bad apples.
Evil is. Good is. God stands in judgement over these things and sees that the universe is balanced in the end. He can't force that balance now without removing our free will. Things must play out to their natural end.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I don't believe in God or Satan because my philosophical system "requires" it, but because it talks about them in the Bible. I know more sophisticated interpretations have said that Satan is only a metaphor. The fact that such a view defines sophistication pretty much says it all in my view.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Relating to older issues, what is Satan's purpose? In Judaism it's quite different from Christianity...
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I don't think Satan has a purpose in the larger sense. There would be disobedience, sin, and evil without any Satan, IMO.
What is Satan in Judaism?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm gonna warn you in advance Jon, don't assume that you know what all Christians believe on this one.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Christians and Christianity are different, just like Jews and Judaism, and Islam and Muslims.
Careful phrasing spares threads.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Okay, I'll rephrase. Don't assume that Christianity has only one take on this.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I guess, then, that I heard the Catholic way; about Satan being God's rival, or so...?
In Judaism he's the angel who tests all of 'em good men.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
E.g. Job.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess, then, that I heard the Catholic way; about Satan being God's rival, or so...?
I don't think this is a good way to sum up Catholicism's view on Satan. The word rivalry implies a parity that is non-existent between God and Satan.
Dagonee
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
So he tries Job not out of rebellion toward God but because it's his ... uh, employment? I guess that would explain why they are chatting at the beginning, but it raises the problem of God being responsible for what happened to Job in a more direct way than if Satan were acting "independently". Which I realize can also ultimately be traced back to God allowing him to exist (per my view).
What about the serpent in the Garden of Eden?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I am he *sniff*.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jonathan, traditionally, it's not Satan, but one of multiple satans. Synonyms that mean "prosecutor" are common as well.
Trisha, since traditional Judaism absolutely rejects the notion that God could possibly not be responsible for each and every event in the world, clearly He is responsible for the tests that each of us is faced with. And we believe no one is presented with a challenge that he/she lacks the ability to overcome.
The snake was the first manifestation of a prosecutor/tempter, and was external. One consequence of Adam and Eve's choice was the internalization of the Evil Inclination (another term for the same notion).
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Thank you, R/rivka! I shall inform "the others" (in my class who were also interested). (((Rivka))) (For beig so nice .)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"Rivka" is fine. So is "rivka."
But "R/rivka" is RIGHT OUT!
And you are quite welcome. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Technically speaking, light and heat exist, cold and dark don’t – they are the absence of light and heat.
This is most definately the case. Applying this to God and Satan in a clumsy way: Satan is wherever God isn't and since God is everywhere, Satan is nowhere.
That makes sense as an argument .
(I might come back to this later, but right now I'm thinking)
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Smart thought! (If I may say, I guess I can.)
Never thought of it... Satan is God's absence, so "he" isn't actually "real", or a self-acknowledged entity...
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Teshi, that works if you accept the axiom that God is everywhere.
Absence of heat may not really exist, and yet it can kill our bodies.
Posted by BYSOAL (Member # 3846) on :
quote: Technically speaking, light and heat exist, cold and dark don’t – they are the absence of light and heat.
Let's see if this makes sense. Heat and light may not exist, but they don't require a belief in them to convey their benefits and usefulness.
B.Y.S.O.A.L.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Let's see if we can read that more carefully. Heat and light do exist. It's cold and dark that don't.
Posted by BYSOAL (Member # 3846) on :
Alright, I did misread; no need to be snippy about it. The point I was trying to make remains, so I'll think of a way to clarify it so you think it deserves a response.
![[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)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)