Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Saint, Aug 28, 2012.
We got to respect people's belief.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
A sense of purpose is temporary. Some people can play an immersive video game, and will feel a deep sense of purpose from the game. Others can feel really immersed in their work or their family or their country or hobby and will feel a sense of purpose in that. Do any of these things really "contain" purpose? Disillusionment is at the heart of the search for purpose. When we are totally absorbed in anything, the question of purpose feels irrelevant. It's natural to want to expand, and common for us to experience disillusionment when a certain direction of expansion is running out of new directions to expand in. Our need to expand is frustrating because almost any direction of expansion can begin to feel like more of the same. We seek to be mesmerized, but as we see the smallness of any domain, including the unexplored aspects of that domain, we wish to again experience the sense of vastness that the domain can no longer offer.
I like to consider disillusionment a very healthy process of expanding past the perspectives that used to be sufficient. Generally speaking we will respond to this prodding by seeking new circumstances within which to be mesmerized, followed by more disillusionment, until we get disenchanted with the whole immersion to disillusionment process. Then it is possible to expand in a way that does not involve eventual disillusionment, because we no longer choose directions of expansion that are too shallow.
No, we have to tolerate people's beliefs and respect people, but we don't have to respect people's beliefs.
You mean that others should respect your beliefs, while you get to be free not to respect their beliefs?
What an excellent answer!
if life has no purpose, then why do you live?
One reason is because of the hope that it will soon again give the feeling of purpose.
I was going to quote Saint, but you'll do.
So basically, I'm wondering why you would support an attempt to throw, say, Ted Bundy, in prison.
Shouldn't an attempt have been made at reasonable dialogue, and Ted have been asked politely to stop killing people first?
That isn't how it happened, though, is it.
He was caught, and thrown in prison where he wasn't going to hurt anyone anymore.
It does rather appear that direct action is in fact quite tolerable in certain circumstances... usually those circumstances in which those involved are directly affected by adverse beliefs.
we are databits in a computer simulation, our task is to adapt to the surrounding environment so our masters can study our actions in mathematical detail.
Life having a purpose does not have to imply a creator -- can a self-aware being not prescribe itself a self-chosen purpose?
Life, the abstract concept itself, along with your life and that of others, can only ever possess the value and purpose you choose. Our reality is subjective, the beautiful thing about humans is we are born into the world a blank canvas. Besides certain biological instincts, what we hold to be valuable is entirely dependent on human factors. Our value of life and the purpose of it is constructed through social exposure, life experiences, and introspection.
Thus, there is no real ultimate or absolute answer. Every group and individual has their own, and part of the journey of life is finding your own (or even choosing not to). Perhaps we, as a species, have invented this concept of a 'purpose' of life, as a sort of insurance against society devolving into some hedonistic mess.
If you're interested in learning about views concerning life 'value' and 'purpose', it may be worthwhile reading up on some Absurdist theory. I would start with Albert Camus, beginning with 'the Stranger' and then studying his essays.
If you are searching for purpose, what better place to start than yourself? Reflect on what you contribute, what you can offer to those you love, and -- perhaps most importantly -- how much more you could offer.
What does a rose contribute to a desert if it's swamped by sand?
A wall-street plutocrat will be concerned with purpose in terms of profit, a poet in terms of love, a general in terms of battle use. As such, purpose is a multifarious concept, and to try and pin one single function or phenomenon down as the ultimate purpose for life, will leave you constantly scrambling for justification, constantly engaging in apologetics. (But who is to say such a practise itself is not inherently a purpose? Exactly my point). Another text I recommend is 'the Little Prince', in its original form (especially illustration). Don't be turned off by its childish appearance.
Hey there, whatisreal, I see you have an interest in reality and metaphysics. Particularly simulation based theory. May I suggest delving into the text 'Simulacra and Simulation'? It deals with perception of reality, symbols, modern and histotical simulacrum, and many other interesting topics relating to your post. (Intetestingly, it was compulsory reading for some actors in The Matrix.
P.S. I apologise if my post seems disconnected or is hard to follow at some parts, I typed it out on my phone so I cannot assure the quality of its form and proof-reading.
Great post. I love Albert Camus and Absurdism. The Matrix is real. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
---FutilitistPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What? We all believe, or drop dead. What do you mean, "beliefs?"
I am talking about general Faith to be. Beliefs, like pillars to live by?
What the fuck dude?
No one is throwing Ted Bundy into jail for his beliefs, rather for his actions. I do not have to tolerate some actions that are the result of beliefs, like throwing acid in the face of your daughter who looked at a boy.
Because I'm not dead.
I know Spider has already responded to this, but I can't help myself. Talk about completely missing the point.
Beliefs are not actions. Actions are not beliefs. Beliefs may influence actions, and actions may stem from beliefs, but they are not the same thing. Ted Bundy wasn't punished because he believes killing is okay; he was punished because he had killed. I could post all day here about how I believe murder is acceptable in certain instances, and even if those instances were counter to current moral thinking, nobody would lock me up for saying so, because I had not actually committed any crimes.
I don't think we have to respect people, and I think we only have to tolerate their beliefs so long as they don't begin to impinge on our our liberties.
Respect is a value judgment, not the default position of every human being.
Oh, I don't miss much. It can sometimes appear I do, on account of literary laziness, though.
Someone has already mentioned Camus. There are a few others you could name, but it would amount to the same thing.
Aye, you and me both.
I do not, however, believe that you'd be the guy sitting next to me in a holding cell wondering whether or not we'd just had a great night. Which is, incidentally, about the only problem I have with you.
A subjective problem. And that's a compliment. Don't mind you, Balerion, the Black Dread.... but were you someone else, once before, years ago, before those books became popular?
Life comes down to the great question; do you believe in God, or not?
If you don't, then anything is acceptable.
Without god, you can't give a flying fuck about humanity, once you're gone.
But if you do believe, then... course locked in, Captain.
And everything in the middle?
welll..... depends on what mood I'm in.
No idea what you're talking about. But then, that's probably the point, isn't it?
Just a few months ago I was JDawg. I left "formerly known as JDawg" under my user name for several weeks so the regulars could get acclimated to the change. As for the books, I've been a fan since sometime in 2008/09 when a friend of mine in a writer's club I belonged to told me I should turn to GRRM for a dark fantasy kick. I tore through the four available (at the time) books in a couple of months and have devoured everything related to the series since. I even bought the freaking map book a week ago. Who buys a book of maps? Certainly not me. Well, never used to be me. But GRRM changes you, man. He's my Tolkien.
I'd take Hitchens' tack and argue the contrary: that with God, everything is acceptable. What righteousness is more absolute than one emboldened by the creator?
Well, it's possible that there is an afterlife without a creator--we simply don't know what the situation is. It seems unlikely, as consciousness appears to be tethered to the physical brain, but who knows? Anyway, even if it's most likely true that caring beyond the grave is impossible, that doesn't stop anyone from caring before they die. For all this talk about divinity and the afterlife, humans seem to be singularly concerned with the material world, and particularly its preservation for future generations. And this is reflected in the actions of theists and atheists alike, so I don't buy this nihilistic worldview that theists (and many agnostics) foist upon non-believers. It's not apparent anywhere in their (our, rather) behavior.
Though, I have to admit, I have no idea what any of this has to do with the topic at hand.
Theoretically, sure. But practically? I don't see it.
Yeah, again, I'm really not picking up what you're putting down.
Separate names with a comma.