Purpose... the ever-illusive addition to reality. A person is born, they live, then they die. But they also do stuff in between. At the moment, I can pick up a remote control and flip through channels, or I can go fix my car. If I choose to flip through channels I would be having a fun time now, but when the shows end I got nuthin to work with and it would be too late to fix the car which I need to go to work tommorrow. Purpose is a means of separating the boys from the men. Now consider a warrior or a soldier or a superhero, they are the exemplifications of purpose. If I fix my car I would save myself, if I fix another's I would save them. Should it be logical and meaningful to "keep on truckin"? Does it matter if we can proove the logic and meaning of life? Perhaps this question is redundant and life itself is nothing more than a process defined by purpose.

The purpose of life is life. What else do you want or need?

It is interesting that you mention automobiles more than four times. I think that is the purpose that we are sold. It used to be raising food or making something with our hands. Now we exist to buy cars, drive them to our job, and repair them sometimes.

http://www.kunstler.com/mags_lumpenleisure.html

Does it matter if we can proove the logic and meaning of life? Perhaps this question is redundant and life itself is nothing more than a process defined by purpose.

The question is redundant because your life is defined by what you do, and what you do is a matter of choice.

You choose your own purpose.

The purpose of life is life. What else do you want or need?


Its no philosophical fun to give a practical answer. The purpose of philosophy is to bitch until someone hits a satisfactory answer, whether right or wrong.

The question is redundant because your life is defined by what you do, and what you do is a matter of choice.

You choose your own purpose.

But do we really choose? It all goes back to the question of free will now there- something clearly lacking in the understimulated life of post-industrial man.

The meaning of life question is merely a restatement of "do we have free-will and how constrained is it? And how do we label our constraints?"

It's rather pointles.

The meaning of life question is merely a restatement of "do we have free-will and how constrained is it? And how do we label our constraints?"

It's rather pointles.


Jimmy and Jonny are both equally lazy. But Jonny believes that a certain action has a purpose and reason. But Jimmy does not do it because it is not seen as a thing to be done, so he remains lazy. Its a matter of seeing the importance in something. Jonny goes on to produce something that saves lives. Jimmy ends up on the street even though he could have done the same thing. No one can tell if there is free will involved.

What does that have to do with free-will or a meaning in life? Just because something seems to have importance to me, that does not imply it is the meaning of my life.. or even a component of it (assuming such a meaning can exist).

Its no philosophical fun to give a practical answer. The purpose of philosophy is to bitch until someone hits a satisfactory answer, whether right or wrong.

Gotcha.

Can we say that the purpose of life is NOT to serve gods? I mean, I firmly believe in Zeus and that he could kick the ass of any of those knee-jerk reactionary gods, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I serve him.

Besides, if he ever found out that I secretly worshipped him and that the whole pupose of my life is to die an honorable death so that I may sit at his side, he'd kick MY ass. He doesn't appreciate any of his followers exhibiting signs of weakness.

Gotcha.

Can we say that the purpose of life is NOT to serve gods? I mean, I firmly believe in Zeus and that he could kick the ass of any of those knee-jerk reactionary gods, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I serve him.

Besides, if he ever found out that I secretly worshipped him and that the whole pupose of my life is to die an honorable death so that I may sit at his side, he'd kick MY ass. He doesn't appreciate any of his followers exhibiting signs of weakness.


That's interesting. We could be doing something, anything, that doesn't have benefit to us or our lives. Or at least we cannot see the purpose in the grand scheme of things. We don't know if the act will land us in Hell or Heaven, or if there is such a thing, but yet we do it. I guess that when we perform a task or act, our thoughts are always earth-bound and materialistic. Because if we knew what is in the hereafter, I can't see us caring to create and produce anything beneficial to society, only to serve the god that (we think) outlined our purpose, or to do things that only aligned with the god's rules, so that would mean that life has two underlying demands that govern every action and every purpose: to sin or not to sin. But humans are error-proned beings, everything we do will have a fucked up element to it. So that chaos aspect of our minds might make the mistake of forgetting to apply the thought to each and every action we make, afterall, we're not automatons.

Life has no meaning, no purpose. But it ought to be dolce.

Life has no meaning, no purpose.

You'll have to prove God doesn't exist to make such a claim.

You'll have to prove God doesn't exist to make such a claim.

Can you prove that he does?

Now go back to the religion forum.

Can you prove that he does?

Now go back to the religion forum.


I'm not some genius like that bouncer who proved God exists.

I'm not some genius like that bouncer who proved God exists.

Ok then.

Where's Gendy?

You'll have to prove God doesn't exist to make such a claim.

No? What if God does exist? And, what if he created the universe? And suppose the universe created humans (just from a chain of events.. nothing strange about that). Does that mean God gave us meaning to live? No. God's existance doesn't imply he gave humans a purpose or that he even meant for humans to exist.

The purpose of life is to evolve and the purpose of evolution is to become what we are.

Does it matter if we can proove the logic and meaning of life?

I think the problem is more in the proof and the nature of proving as such,
rather than in life and meaning.

The way I see it, the problem with proving is that proving assumes that the differentiation between phenomena is real, adequate and that phenomena have a context-independent, absolute, finite self. This assumption, however, is unprovable, as the proof of it is catching itself by its tail ...

I'd have to agree with the early posters who wrote that this 'meaning of life' question relates to free-will. As it was written, we (or most of us) can do almost anything, but the real question is whether we can do anything of significance; anything that will mean something. For this is what we are searching for; meaning, and so the question has become one of commonality, or rarity (individuality). We each may act, but the fact that so many people act in similar ways (such as going to work) implies the merit of the action.
Discovering something that only the individual, or you, can do, is the meaning of individuality (in my opinion), which is why there are record-breakers within the world; those who have climbed mountains, or crossed oceans. These are acts of significance because they are rare: they may be repeated, but never again for the first-time!
The meaning of life question, to me, continues further historically than it relates to what I 'will' do. For the puzzle seems to be how life can be created without the consent of the individual being created.

Your purpose in life is whatever you choose.

Is there another purpose unknown to you but chosen for you? Nothing to say that might be true.

Your purpose in life is whatever you choose.

Is there another purpose unknown to you but chosen for you? Nothing to say that might be true.

I think it is not just 'whatever you choose', but depends on our needs and our situation. A starving man's purpose in life is to find food, an endangered person's is to survive. A lonely person seeks company. Beyond that there are psychological and (dare I say it) 'spiritual' needs that we seek to fulfil and which provide us with purpose. All in all, our purpose may be to seek the highest 'good' that we lack.

Not my idea but Maslow's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs)...

I think it is not just 'whatever you choose', but depends on our needs and our situation. A starving man's purpose in life is to find food, an endangered person's is to survive. A lonely person seeks company. Beyond that there are psychological and (dare I say it) 'spiritual' needs that we seek to fulfil and which provide us with purpose. All in all, our purpose may be to seek the highest 'good' that we lack.

Not my idea but Maslow's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs)...


Should a starving man find food and fill his stomach, he is left with two choices, to seek other "needs" (perceived or not) or to remain stagnant, his new condition affords him that. If he chooses to seek other needs on a constant basis, he will meet all his own needs and eventually, if satisfied, he will fulfill his potential. From this point the man is in the position to meet the needs of other humans who have not, or could not, meet their own.

The purpose of life is to bring forth the next generation, and moreso to ensure the survival of the species. This is the driving cause embedded deep inside of all living things. You can go deeper and ask why is this cause embedded in us, to which I have no answer.

Should a starving man find food and fill his stomach, he is left with two choices, to seek other "needs" (perceived or not) or to remain stagnant, his new condition affords him that. But what are the needs of a living being? Perhaps by having his need met he is simply afforded an extension of life, whereby he must then choose how to act henceforth...

Should a starving man find food and fill his stomach, he is left with two choices, to seek other "needs" (perceived or not) or to remain stagnant, his new condition affords him that. If he chooses to seek other needs on a constant basis, he will meet all his own needs and eventually, if satisfied, he will fulfill his potential. From this point the man is in the position to meet the needs of other humans who have not, or could not, meet their own.
Nicely put!

But what are the needs of a living being? Perhaps by having his need met he is simply afforded an extension of life, whereby he must then choose how to act henceforth... Yes. Perhaps in meeting the needs of others, he is also 'extending' himself out into the world. Perhaps it is no longer a 'need', but a choice.

The purpose of life is to bring forth the next generation, and moreso to ensure the survival of the species. This is the driving cause embedded deep inside of all living things. You can go deeper and ask why is this cause embedded in us, to which I have no answer. That is the purpose of an aphids life, or a bacterium's - as a result of natural selection. I think humans are more complex. It is possible as a human to have a purpose that does not involve reproduction.

What higher purpose could that be, bio-engineering?

Doesn't purpose signify a goal, of which the focus is a state of completion, or an ending? Humanity's 'need' to search for an ending should be considered 'unnatural', while the end of other species may be considered more natural.

Doesn't purpose signify a goal, of which the focus is a state of completion, or an ending? Humanity's 'need' to search for an ending should be considered 'unnatural', while the end of other species may be considered more natural.

We tend to form the negative opinion that life is a series of purposes or goals, but this proposition forgets that humans have a choice. All purpose or "goal" brings not ending, but beginning. Life is a constant battle beween need and choice, where the latter comes after the former, but may not always be savory. However, those who are more privileged or "advantaged", such as a rich, lazy person, would experience minimum struggle, that is, an ending to all of life's problems, unless yet more problems in the form of unforeseen circumstances intervene on his savory condition, and he is ended via inability.

I should add that stagnance, when it comes to human beings, strictly capitalises on self-indulgence, but fails under circumstances inconducive to life and hence need itself. One who meets all needs has but two choices always.

Doesn't purpose signify a goal, of which the focus is a state of completion, or an ending? Humanity's 'need' to search for an ending should be considered 'unnatural', while the end of other species may be considered more natural.
I like that!


This is a part of a book I have been working on that applies to this discussion...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill was at Sammy’s listening to us talk, the morning after the unfortunate Noxema Girl incident. It wasn't like Bill to shout across a room, so he meandered over and took a seat in the empty barber's chair next to me during my shave and placed his hat on his lap.

"Back in nineteen... thirty... five, I think it was, I used to run around the Black and Tan joints in Bronzeville - the South Side of Chicago -with a character we used to call Magilla Gorilla-

"No association, far as I'm aware, before you even come up with some insipid joke about the name. The man was about as big as a gorilla - and about as mean as one in moments - and his name was Randall McGillicuddy.

"Magilla had lots of strange theories and ideas and he would go on and on about them for hours.

"One day, Magilla was musing on about Negroes-" he looked at Sammy, "No offense, of course, that's what we used to call blacks back then, without malice or prejudice," he looked back at me, "and why they danced better than white people." Bill paused for a moment wondering if he was going to be scolded. "Anyway, he went on about how people are not born with souls, rather they have to earn them. He spoke about oppressed people and the more forcefully you attempt to hold them down, the more vigorously they fight to get up. People who have to fight for their survival every minute of every day, according to Magilla, will appreciate life and the moments of joy they are afforded so much more than those who take life and liberty for granted. The lower your lows are, the higher your highs will be. He talked about oppression nurturing and fostering character. He talked about how a Negro may rob from you if he is in dire straits and is forced to do such things as a matter of survival, but a white man will stab you in the back for the hell of it just because he doesn't like you. He mentioned slaves and how, the harder the life they had, the more passionate and appreciative they were about life.

"Magilla thought all this meant that people were meant to earn their souls and places in heaven through suffering and hard times. 'The meek shall inherit the earth', 'man will be judged by his works' and all that. Hell, his name was McGillicuddy, after all. He couldn't turn his back on the Mother Church even if he wanted to. It was bred into him. He did, however, read his scriptures with an open mind, which is more than I can say about most Christians -ESPECIALLY the Catholics. He had a slightly different take on the Good Book than most, though. He actually made some valid points, but like any good Irishman, he missed the big picture."

"Which was?"

Sammy slapped the back of my head for moving while he was trying to shave me. "Do you know how quick I can take an ear off with this?"

"Purpose, son"

Bill never called me "son" before. I didn't know what to think of it.

"Every human being is born with an innate sense that he or she has some purpose in life. It's what drives some of us to build skyscrapers and search for the cure for cancer. It drives some to be political or religious leaders. The search for purpose is not reserved for the great and mighty alone, mind you. The Junkie, lying in a lake of his own piss and vomit in the gutter is not really a whole lot different than Mother Teresa when it comes right down to it. They've just found different things to fill that empty hole of unfulfilled purpose. People use all sorts of things to fill that hole.

"We all find or invent a purpose for ourselves. Otherwise we flounder through life feeling worthless until we finally die feeling worthless.

"What are invented purposes, but simple devices that help us remain alive by helping us forget that we aren't living? People revel in their silly little passions. They memorize the stats of every football player who ever played in the NFL. They bury themselves in work, spending their entire lives attempting to convince themselves what a worthy cause repairing consumers' credit ratings is. They collect fucking thimbles.

"Football, Prozac, Heroin... what's the difference? They all function in basically the same way to help us turn our backs on life. They serve as purpose placebos.

"People who have to fight tooth and nail daily for their very survival have a built-in purpose already. They don't have to invent one. They don't have to search for a passion. Life itself is their passion and they couldn't forget it if they tried. When life is your passion, you celebrate life - you revel in life - you love life - you appreciate life itself as the greatest gift and privilege. Life is its own purpose.

He paused for a few moments letting it all sink in, then leaned in a bit closer, "Susan was your purpose, son. You're floundering."

What higher purpose could that be, bio-engineering? LOL - I think one-raven's post above might be one possible answer to that question, though I'd disagree that all purposes are of the same value. Some entail dependance (e.g. Heroin), which leads eventually to misery, others merely fill in time (TV Football), which leads eventually to boredom.

A 'higher purpose' might be self expression e.g. composing a symphony or writing the next best-seller book or demonstrating against the war. Something that leads to an enhancement of life...

I know plenty of people who are hopelessly addicted to "time fillers" like football and TV.

Clearly you've never actually been to a football match, DD. It can be life-enhancing, depending on how well your team plays.

Not sure who said this but, "only by controlling one's thoughts can one control one's destiny," as thought is one of the scarce things we have control over.

Purpose... the ever-illusive addition to reality. A person is born, they live, then they die. But they also do stuff in between. At the moment, I can pick up a remote control and flip through channels, or I can go fix my car. If I choose to flip through channels I would be having a fun time now, but when the shows end I got nuthin to work with and it would be too late to fix the car which I need to go to work tommorrow. Purpose is a means of separating the boys from the men. Now consider a warrior or a soldier or a superhero, they are the exemplifications of purpose. If I fix my car I would save myself, if I fix another's I would save them. Should it be logical and meaningful to "keep on truckin"? Does it matter if we can proove the logic and meaning of life? Perhaps this question is redundant and life itself is nothing more than a process defined by purpose.

It might be an illusion brought about by the neverending search for greener grass. <i>Desire</i> might be the correct term for purpose. Attainment seems to be the purpose of most, whatever that objective might be. Then again, somethings just happen without any effort or objective. Sometimes, things just come to you without request or effort.

I think a great question to put into the fray would be this:

Is purpose made greater or lesser from whence it comes? Is a purpose that stems from one's own desires less than one which stems from some notion of fate and destiny outside the individual?

Discuss, though purpose may not even be possible outside the individual. Let's deal with it hypothetically if that is the case - although let's try to discuss that after this, also.

Feel free to answer your own guestions too.

My first thought would be that of our discussion regarding time and its apparent direction. That might imply purpose beyond individual concept. If that purpose of time is to be fulfilled, then any action of subjective purpose is subservant to the larger purpose. Our purpose would be only one part of the larger machine--though we might think it our own.

We would need to accept the idea that freewill has no existence.

Your turn! :)

Bowser:

"My first thought would be that of our discussion regarding time and its apparent direction. That might imply purpose beyond individual concept. If that purpose of time is to be fulfilled, then any action of subjective purpose is subservant to the larger purpose. Our purpose would be only one part of the larger machine--though we might think it our own."

Could we claim this truly as a purpose, or would we be better off declaring it "the way time works"? For it does not entail that it is our -purpose- to be such, only that time demands we manifest in certain ways. This would, however, lead to some notion of destiny in a vague sense, but the impersonalization of the act seems to mitigate its destiny-aspects, whereas destiny is generally classified as an aim set by an exterior entity.

That being said, it is the closest thing to destiny that seems somewhat practical, and for that reason alone, it is intriguing.

Hmmm. I'll think more about this topic and add more thoughts.

Like it says in the song,

Street dreams are made of these
Nigg*z push Beemers and 300 E's
A drug dealer's destiny is reachin a key
Everybody's lookin for somethin..
Street dreams are made of these
Shorties on they knees, for nigg*z with big G's
Who am I to disagree?
Everybody's lookin for somethin..

Nicholas:

Funny rap song. That being said, you think purpose revolves around living a street life?

Nicholas:

Funny rap song. That being said, you think purpose revolves around living a street life?


Not necessarily. To truly appreciate life you have to embrace death. To live like your already dead. Think and meditate upon death and the many ways of how you as a person can be killed.

Nicholas:

We read far too much hagakure, you and I. I just quoted the same thing in the samurai quote area at almost the same time you paraphrased it here.

Purpose... the ever-illusive addition to reality. A person is born, they live, then they die. But they also do stuff in between. At the moment, I can pick up a remote control and flip through channels, or I can go fix my car. If I choose to flip through channels I would be having a fun time now, but when the shows end I got nuthin to work with and it would be too late to fix the car which I need to go to work tommorrow. Purpose is a means of separating the boys from the men. Now consider a warrior or a soldier or a superhero, they are the exemplifications of purpose. If I fix my car I would save myself, if I fix another's I would save them. Should it be logical and meaningful to "keep on truckin"? Does it matter if we can proove the logic and meaning of life? Perhaps this question is redundant and life itself is nothing more than a process defined by purpose.

You are absolutely correct. Life is purpose same as energy. Energy has two forms (i.e. potential and kinetic). We have the power to flip flop between potential and kinetic energy.

If we lack a purpose in life, then we won't need any energy. Thus, we flip flop to potential energy. Often times to sustain any energy we develop a negative purpose that calls for negative energy and we become negative minded.

On the other hand, we can develop a positive purpose that calls for positive energy and we become positive minded.

Potential energy = static vs. Kinetic energy = dynamic

1) Static property of potential energy is neutral (no purpose)
2) Dynamic property of kinetic energy is either positive or negative (purpose)

Thus, purpose is the dynamic flow of electrons and the discharge of electrical energy that causes our mind to work (i.e. think) positively or negatively.

stanleyg:

"Thus, purpose is the dynamic flow of electrons and the discharge of electrical energy that causes our mind to work (i.e. think) positively or negatively."

I think you are somewhat over focusing on certain scientific realities. To claim that the flow of electrons in the brain can lead to a conscious desire towards potentiality seems rather suspect. What in the electron could produce such a thing?