PDA

View Full Version : What is the Meaning of Life?



Northern Paladin
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 02:54 AM
I believe the meaning of life is to experience the world in a positive way (have fun) and to share experience (make others people have fun, share your good moments with them, etc).

Please discuss.

Ediruc
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 02:58 AM
I think our existence is nihilistic.

*puts on a combat helmet*

Alright, ready for the wave of disagreement.

Silent_Saxon
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 03:07 AM
"We eat , we sh*#, we f!*% , we kill and we die"

Ingvaeonic
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 03:10 AM
Isn't the meaning of life, the universe, and everything 42? It's as good an answer as anything else.

Todesritter
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 03:20 AM
Highly subjective question of course, but for me, the ultimate meaning of life is not for us to understand, however perhaps it will be for our descendants in the far future; so for us it is DUTY, it is children of good breeding and upbringing, heirs of superior theoretical biological potential than us and their grandparents before us, and real wealth including a healthy earth for them to inherit.

It is to take the wealth we have been given by our ancient ancestors, add to it, and pass it on.

Ingvaeonic
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 03:27 AM
I wrote this in a previous post and I'll repeat it here. There is no inherent meaning or purpose of life; the onus is on the individual to provide meaning and purpose to his or her own life. That's how I see it.

VermontBlue
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 04:04 AM
"No inherent meaning or purpose of life?"

What is the point of having living if it is meaningless.

From a biological perspective it is reproducing, keeping the best qualities of our people alive.

From a theological, it is to live as Jesus Christ intended, live a good and satisfying life.

From a personal, it is to achieve said points, and try to involve oneself as an instrument of the struggle.

Hedonism etc doesn't warrant any motivation for one.

Ediruc
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 04:28 AM
"No inherent meaning or purpose of life?"

What is the point of having living if it is meaningless.

From a biological perspective it is reproducing, keeping the best qualities of our people alive.

From a theological, it is to live as Jesus Christ intended, live a good and satisfying life.

From a personal, it is to achieve said points, and try to involve oneself as an instrument of the struggle.

Hedonism etc doesn't warrant any motivation for one.

But it also doesn't give me a reason not to end it.

Ingvaeonic
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 04:39 AM
"No inherent meaning or purpose of life?"

What is the point of having living if it is meaningless.

From a biological perspective it is reproducing, keeping the best qualities of our people alive.

From a theological, it is to live as Jesus Christ intended, live a good and satisfying life.

From a personal, it is to achieve said points, and try to involve oneself as an instrument of the struggle.

Hedonism etc doesn't warrant any motivation for one.

A biological imperative to reproduce etc. does not in itself provide meaning or purpose of life. How can it? Any operation of the natural world is what it is and does not of itself and by itself provide meaning or purpose in any rational way. It is simply how matters have evolved and developed. The universe is what it is and does need any human interpretation or postulating to provide it with meaning or purpose.

As for the Christian perspective, that is purely subjective. Christianity, or religion generally, may provide you and others with meaning and purpose in life, but it fails to provide others with such beliefs and motivations. If Christianity was inherently universally natural, objective, and instinctive to human beings, we'd all be Christians and we patently are not.

VermontBlue
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 04:57 AM
A biological imperative to reproduce etc. does not in itself provide meaning or purpose of life. How can it? Any operation of the natural world is what it is and does not of itself and by itself provide meaning or purpose in any rational way. The universe is what it is and does need any human interpretation or postulating to provide it with meaning or purpose.

As for the Christian perspective, that is purely subjective. Christianity, or religion generally, may provide you and others with meaning and purpose in life, but it fails to provide others with such motivations. If Christianity was inherently universally natural, objective, and instinctive to human beings, we'd all be Christians and we patently are not.

I understand your sentiment but one has to disagree; nature is not a irrational formless chaos, it is not indifferent to those which inhabitant it, this is why only those most cunning of our forefathers, those whom mastered nature survived. There is meaning there, even if it remains seldom observed in our manufactured environments. There does exist beyond this veil a Natural Law governing this universe; for as Cicero stated Law "ought to be a reformer of vice and an incentive to virtue" and that these are given by our creator.

As you may note, I stated not only to reproduce, but to cultivate the best characteristics; why admire qualities of a people without accepting the responsibility to preserve them?

In regards to my statement to live as Jesus Christ did, it doesn't have to be a Christian one; historical Jesus is identified to have the same qualities which one renders good, self sacrifice, compassion, pursuit for justice, honor etc. He is perhaps the most documented individual in human kind, so I would reason that his character can inspire universally, even to those with different or no beliefs.

Christianity is not inherently universally natural, objective, and instinctive to human beings, but neither is intelligence.

Wychaert
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 07:38 AM
8ZWRe9DFYZ8

Jäger
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 08:37 AM
I understand your sentiment but one has to disagree; nature is not a irrational formless chaos, it is not indifferent to those which inhabitant it, this is why only those most cunning of our forefathers, those whom mastered nature survived.
There are a lot of species on this planet who survived without "mastering" nature.
Of course, from time to time they die out.


He is perhaps the most documented individual in human kind, so I would reason that his character can inspire universally, even to those with different or no beliefs.
This character description is at times at odds with character descriptions from our forefathers, which they admired and manifested in our Gods.

Edie
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 10:55 AM
The purpose of life is to promulgate one's genes. Meaning is our invention, utterly extrinsic to the reproductive purpose of our being here. If one fails to procreate, one is a failed organism, a dead end -- even if one is a Nobel winning scientist or a legendary poet (these successes being in the realm of our invention of 'meaning' that doesn't really exist).

If you want the meaning of your life to be riding a unicycle with a sparkler in your ear, then that's the meaning of life. It really doesn't matter.

Jäger
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 12:00 PM
The purpose of life is to promulgate one's genes. Meaning is our invention, ...
So evidently, this purpose is not satisfactory to the human mind, for whatever reason.
The philosophical question behind this is at odds with our current mental capabilities, indeed the best thing we, as thinking beings, can do is to selectively breed, advance within the realm of nature and maybe sometime we might understand. :)

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, August 30th, 2011, 10:24 PM
I think our existence is nihilistic.

*puts on a combat helmet*

Alright, ready for the wave of disagreement.

Throws a spear of dissent at your combat helmet :P

I do not agree, this is very untrue. There is meaning to life and it is to share your life with someone you love. I'm sure that if you've ever felt love you would agree ;)

arvak
Tuesday, August 30th, 2011, 10:45 PM
Eating good food, educating oneself to a higher inteligence and evolving physically and spiritualy to a higher form and breeding with very attractive women to pass on the racial blood into the offspring thus creating a higher humanity for the future.

Ocko
Tuesday, August 30th, 2011, 10:48 PM
From one angle: To transfer cosmic energies to Mother Earth to further her agenda.

From another angle: to create beings who can replace the Gods, so they can climb the ladder's next ring

Stanley
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 12:06 AM
I think a lot of this question boils down to whether or not you're religious. The religious will say the meaning of life is contingent upon their set of beliefs, and the nonreligious will say life has no inborn meaning. I don't know of any exceptions.

As a nonreligious person, I don't think there's a meaning or a purpose in life. Still, you can only dwell on the nihilistic essence of life for so long; you still have to live. I can't help but think it's those who let their nihilistic predispositions pervade every aspect of their life who have gotten us into this postmodern mess. Life is real enough to me that I feel I have to give it a meaning of some sort, albeit a constructed one, and for that I like Todesritter's: "It is to take the wealth we have been given by our ancient ancestors, add to it, and pass it on." The core principle of a civilized organism. It's as good as any.

On a side note, I hear it argued a lot that the purpose (but not necessarily the meaning) of life is to reproduce. I take umbrage with giving an unconscious process purpose. Unless you'd also argue it's gravity's purpose to pull mass towards mass, then it's just an argument over semantics.

Mvix
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 12:31 AM
The meaning of life is to reproduce, to continue your bloodline.

Austin
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 12:37 AM
Simple. To reproduce.

If you don't reproduce as an organism you have failed your entire natural and biological point of existence.

That's why you see many older, libertine types who are very upset on various forums when they see this stuff posted by people. They never had kids and failed as organisms in life and they know it, hence their inherent anti-traditional viewpoints.


Let's all smile at them.:)

The Horned God
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 01:42 AM
I can only offer up for consideration those the things that have given my life meaning. In no particular order they are; the pursuit of sexual intercourse, taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others, a good read and occasionally a stiff drink or 3 or 10. That's about it, folks.

Stanley
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 01:59 AM
If you don't reproduce as an organism you have failed your entire natural and biological point of existence.

So a bacterium who has undergone binary fission has had an objectively more meaningful existence than someone who is a son/daughter, brother/sister, and/or aunt/uncle and has succeeded in making their environment a better place for their family, community, country, and cultural descendants? If so, it's no meaning I invest in.

I am entirely unsatisfied by the idea that reproduction is the sole meaning in life. If being a tool for hardwired unconscious phenomena is somehow what we deem as being successful, let's be through with civilization and accept that bacteria have defeated us.


I can only offer up for consideration those the things that have given my life meaning. In no particular order they are; the pursuit or sexual intercourse, taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others, a good read and occasionally a stiff drink or 3 or 10. That's about it, folks.

You find no meaning in being Irish? ;)

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 02:04 AM
The purpose of life is to promulgate one's genes. Meaning is our invention, utterly extrinsic to the reproductive purpose of our being here. If one fails to procreate, one is a failed organism, a dead end -- even if one is a Nobel winning scientist or a legendary poet (these successes being in the realm of our invention of 'meaning' that doesn't really exist).

That's hard to deny, but the award-winning scientist, whose contribution will have an impact (say genetically) on countless future generations, perhaps even significantly improving the human gene pool, is infinitely more successful than Jorge the landscaper who succeeds at producing 18 identical replicas of himself or his equally useless wife. In his case, not being a dead-end is hardly a success. The scientist on the other hand, though a total loss/failure in one respect, is a big success in another.

Black Talon
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 02:54 AM
I believe that our purpose is to become wise enough; advanced enough where we can fare forth to the stars and meet our makers.


...though I do also like what Conan said:

"To crush your enemies
To see them driven before you
and to hear the lamentations of the women."

;-)

Jäger
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 07:18 AM
If you don't reproduce as an organism you have failed your entire natural and biological point of existence.
Maybe, but so what? This has little to do with "meaning".


...though I do also like what Conan said:

"To crush your enemies
To see them driven before you
and to hear the lamentations of the women."

;-)
That's just what's best in life. :|:D

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 07:41 AM
Simple. To reproduce.

Wrong. That is the purpose of life.


If you don't reproduce as an organism you have failed your entire natural and biological point of existence.

Yes.

The meaning of life is something for people who have failed life's purpose to sit around and contemplate. ;)

There is no meaning of life. It simply is or is not.

Heinrich Harrer
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 07:43 AM
The purpose of life is to promulgate one's genes. Meaning is our invention, utterly extrinsic to the reproductive purpose of our being here. If one fails to procreate, one is a failed organism, a dead end -- even if one is a Nobel winning scientist or a legendary poet (these successes being in the realm of our invention of 'meaning' that doesn't really exist).

If you want the meaning of your life to be riding a unicycle with a sparkler in your ear, then that's the meaning of life. It really doesn't matter.

I would like to add that one can fulfill this purpose, to promulgate ones genes, without necessarily reproducing - even if that's perhaps the most favorable/straightforward way.

Let's say a scientist sacrifices his private life to develope some cure for his people or a weapon that gives his people a competetive edge over other people - then he has helped to secure the future for the genepool of his people (of which his genes are a part of).

WsVcRf
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 11:48 AM
The purpose of life is to live with meaning.

Edie
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 01:57 PM
The primary imperative is to pass on one's own genes; of secondary importance is the perpetuation of similar genes, so failing the first, the job naturally is to ensure that family members are secured for the future (hence why childless people are so fond of their nieces and nephews). Beyond that, there is the scientist who develops some cure or weapon that advances his people, as Heinrich said. He certainly is not a failure in life, measured on the gauge of success we ascribe to it, but is he a failed organism? Well, kind of. It might not be nice to frame our 'personhood' in terms that seem reductive, but really, we exist only as temporary receptacles for our genes, not coffins for them; if the scientist does not pass on his own genes, he has failed the primary objective -- whose accomplishment we regard as the standard of a successful organism (why else do we feel more sadness when a young animal or child dies than when an old one does? It is the natural response to an organism that has failed -- not because it died, but because its genes died with it).

As the scientist has performed the secondary function and secured the posterity of similar genes, I suppose he can't be considered a completely failed organism. But he did not transmit directly his own genetic material, so he is still not as successful as one who did.

This type of discourse easily slides into value judgements and semantic debates, as Stanley said. It's important to distinguish between the personality of our perception of life and the impersonality of nature, where success means only to stay alive and keep genetic material 'alive', so to speak. An argument could be made for the most biologically successful human being the rapist who spreads his seed far and wide, increasing the likelihood that his genes will survive and spread even farther afield with every rape he commits (it is said that 8% of Asian men are descended from Genghis Khan :-O).

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 01:59 PM
Nah, nah, nah. The meaning of life, the universe, and everything is 42. Everyone knows that! Boy, do you people complicate things.

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 04:27 PM
Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world.[1] Natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world. The goal of science is to discover and publish these laws. Philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that Spirits, Deities, and Ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. This sense of naturalism is usually referred to as metaphysical naturalism or philosophical naturalism.[2]

For once, Wikipedia doesn't do a bad job of giving a synoptic definition of philosophical naturalism. As you can read, adherents of philosophical naturalism, and I am one, believe that there is no "purpose" in nature. That being so, one must provide rational purpose to one's own life. Biological or natural imperatives, such as reproduction, are neither a rational "meaning" or a rational "purpose"; they are merely instinctive and natural operations and products of the long evolutionary process.

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 04:51 PM
Heinrich, Norbert, Stanley, and consequently Edie put it best :) there is meaning beyond physical promulgations of one's own genes as evidenced by the scientist who makes future generations more competent at breeding. Interpretations of such will only meant to aspire to he who develops a eugenics program, and makes it applicable/acceptable to his people is a God in my view.

What do you think of my theory, that life derives its meaning from experience and the sharing of experience? Anyone want to comment on that?


Nah, nah, nah. The meaning of life, the universe, and everything is 42. Everyone knows that! Boy, do you people complicate things.

Bah, 42 is such a boring number. I much prefer 76 or even better 85 personally ;)

Austin
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 06:36 PM
So a bacterium who has undergone binary fission has had an objectively more meaningful existence than someone who is a son/daughter, brother/sister, and/or aunt/uncle and has succeeded in making their environment a better place for their family, community, country, and cultural descendants? If so, it's no meaning I invest in.

I am entirely unsatisfied by the idea that reproduction is the sole meaning in life. If being a tool for hardwired unconscious phenomena is somehow what we deem as being successful, let's be through with civilization and accept that bacteria have defeated us.



You find no meaning in being Irish? ;)


I don't give a damn about superficial notions of a beloved civilization. If European people could be replenished and re-invigorated numerically I'd gladly support the annihilation of the current grandiose civilization that I'm supposed to be excited about as it actively works to rape us on so many levels. London and Paris and NYC can burn to the ground tomorrow for all I care. They are irrelevant in this line of reproductive thought.

If you don't have children with another European as a European you have essentially undone your biological line. Not just this, if you only have one child you have not replicated both parents hence you've essentially also done nothing to replenish the European population, which is why people in cities who have one child are still crashing the population.

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 07:19 PM
I believe that our purpose is to become wise enough; advanced enough where we can fare forth to the stars and meet our makers

Reminds me of what Nietzsche said, to prepare the earth for the arrival of the Overman.

Happiness is also a good pursuit, as it serves a greater purpose -- increasing the chances of reproduction.

Sigurd
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 08:00 PM
What is the meaning of life? I would say the better question is: Where can you find the meaning of life? And I'll tell you when I've found it. :fwink:

Vindefense
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 09:39 PM
As you can read, adherents of philosophical naturalism, and I am one, believe that there is no "purpose" in nature.

Then why do you experience the sensations of pain and pleasure? And how do you explain the existence of reward and punishment in nature?

Ingvaeonic
Thursday, September 1st, 2011, 12:15 PM
What is the meaning of life? I would say the better question is: Where can you find the meaning of life? And I'll tell you when I've found it. :fwink:

Indeed, that is a much better question. I could tell you where I found meaning and purpose in life, but then I wouldn't to spoil the search for some of you. Keep looking, troops, if you haven't already found it! The answer is out there.

Ingvaeonic
Thursday, September 1st, 2011, 12:19 PM
Then why do you experience the sensations of pain and pleasure? And how do you explain the existence of reward and punishment in nature?

I don't know. Do you? Perhaps you should ask why sensations such as pain and pleasure exist at all. Ditto reward and punishment. Nature exists and doesn't have to have a meaning or purpose. For human beings, meaning and purpose in one's life must be found, or produced, within one, not without.

Sigurd
Thursday, September 1st, 2011, 02:55 PM
Then why do you experience the sensations of pain and pleasure? And how do you explain the existence of reward and punishment in nature?

Some people feel no pain, others feel no dizziness. At some point they are left wondering what pain or dizziness feels like, as they have no way of explaining how other people feel them. They're not usually nice sensations (well, pain arguably isn't always unpleasant, I suppose :P) but they are part of life, and those who cannot experience them will find that something's missing from their lives. ;)

Caoimhe
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 12:26 AM
Simple. To reproduce.

If you don't reproduce as an organism you have failed your entire natural and biological point of existence.

That's why you see many older, libertine types who are very upset on various forums when they see this stuff posted by people. They never had kids and failed as organisms in life and they know it, hence their inherent anti-traditional viewpoints.


Let's all smile at them.:)

Your opinion doesn't count for much. Ever spent time to think about women and men who are physically unable to have children?

Hamar Fox
Sunday, September 4th, 2011, 10:10 AM
Others have already said it well: Life has no inherent meaning. To ascribe deeper meaning is a strictly human ability, and we can't be wrong by our own standards. But just as surely we can't be right. We can look at why we exist, how we came to exist and how we can continue to exist, but this isn't meaning imparted by some higher consciousness: it's just happenstance. Reproduction is the means by which we can create more biological units with the capacity to invent meaning, but it's not 'meaning' in itself. Reproduction is no more the meaning of our existence than to stick to things is the 'meaning' of the existence of blu-tack, and that's despite blu-tack being created with a distinct intention in mind, which we weren't. Meaning would die with the last human, and nothing else would care -- least of all the abstraction and metaphor 'Nature'.

Bernhard
Sunday, September 4th, 2011, 11:06 AM
Your opinion doesn't count for much. Ever spent time to think about women and men who are physically unable to have children?

You already answered this yourself. They can't reproduce, thus nature eliminates their bloodline automatically, because they have no biological purpose.

Edie
Sunday, September 4th, 2011, 11:38 AM
'Purpose' is another way of saying 'meaning', but it differs somewhat in its place and import in one's worldview. Ascribing purpose to an inherently purposeless, insentient process is to create it in our image, to make logical, self-mirroring sense of it that necessarily comes from us. Purpose is not dependent on an inscrutable higher consciousness, it is a meaning with which we imbue our existence and the reproductive mechanism upon which it is contingent. Because of this, the idea of the transmission of genes as a purpose is valid and essential for us.

To deny the purposefulness that we impart to phenomena is to become passive Alices in a world of illogic and happenstance. (Though most people have acknowledged the projected nature of purpose, which is not to reject its validity.)

Hersir
Sunday, September 4th, 2011, 12:11 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kC0mL8lDZCY/TCqSvaZLnOI/AAAAAAAAAjE/rmtvsqsyLaU/s1600/42.png

Vindefense
Sunday, September 4th, 2011, 07:37 PM
I don't know. Do you? Perhaps you should ask why sensations such as pain and pleasure exist at all. Ditto reward and punishment. Nature exists and doesn't have to have a meaning or purpose. For human beings, meaning and purpose in one's life must be found, or produced, within one, not without.

I find no truth in accidentals. Children are always using this excuse and it doesn't fly with me. I find that pain and pleasure exist for the purpose of developing our senses and that these senses exist so we can react to those causes which tend toward one or the other. In this regard, nature is the catalyst which prods us along to complete consciousness regardless of what we think, want or do; we can neither speed it along nor resist it.

Posted by Sigurd:


Some people feel no pain, others feel no dizziness. At some point they are left wondering what pain or dizziness feels like, as they have no way of explaining how other people feel them. They're not usually nice sensations (well, pain arguably isn't always unpleasant, I suppose ) but they are part of life, and those who cannot experience them will find that something's missing from their lives.

Even more interesting is the tolerances that some build up toward pain and pleasure proving that man is neither directed purely towards pleasure anymore than he is purely directed to forgo pain. Yet there are definite limits where the infliction or the pursuit of pain and pleasure can lead to bodily harm. Surly that not only must we find these limits but must also have the ability to recognize and react to them, tends to indicate at least some sort of directive.

Hamar Fox
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 11:31 AM
I know you're a Hegelian, so I'm interpreting the following through that lens.


I find no truth in accidentals. Children are always using this excuse and it doesn't fly with me. I find that pain and pleasure exist for the purpose of developing our senses and that these senses exist so we can react to those causes which tend toward one or the other. In this regard, nature is the catalyst which prods us along to complete consciousness regardless of what we think, want or do; we can neither speed it along nor resist it.


What common features there are in nature stem from the fact that life, for the most part, has acclimatised itself to a common reality, under common laws. I say for the most part because the survival of a housefly depends on different factors than a human. But in essence, reality is the mold that trims the fat of all the possibilities of what we could be, and urges us down a recognisable path -- the path of maximising reproductive success, for example through, as you say, the development of keen senses and safeguards against threat or injury. This isn't conscious design, however. It's also not a universal striving toward a point of absolute oneness (As I believe Hegel states, but I haven't read much of his work). Think of it like clay in a mold. You could start with a big amorphous chunk of clay, but when you push it inside the mold, it takes a definite form and the excess is disposed of, it's redundant. The clay now has a shape, but it wasn't in the nature of the clay to be that shape, but in the nature of the mold. Nature is our mold.

You might want to argue that something still designed the mold and pushed the clay into it. Well, that was just my analogy. You can use any natural process as an example. The curve of the river depends on the valley it's in. The shape of ice in a rock takes the shape of the hole the water was in, etc. etc. Nobody would argue this was design. I should also say that natural law doesn't lead inexorably to togetherness and completeness. The millions of species that have existed on Earth all originated from a single cell. It also doesn't lead to higher complexity, or higher comprehensive ability (which, again, I believe Hegel states is the vehicle of oneness -- the ability to unite all things in concept), since the simplest most ancient organic forms also remain the most successful. They've had no need to change. Natural law has required it.

Basically, you mistake the regimentation of life for evidence of will and purpose, when in truth it's simply statistical inevitability realised over millennia. The organisms that felt no pain and threw themselves into bonfires (not that I don't know pain evolved long before an organism was capable of throwing itself into fire, it's just a analogy) are long gone. They were the clay that didn't fit the mold and ended up in the dustbin. Maybe children are wiser than you think.

Falcon
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 10:03 AM
Do anything which makes you happy and believe me, the world and society will surely gain through anything you put your mind upon

wehrwolfblood
Thursday, September 8th, 2011, 08:36 PM
I think William Pierce does a pretty good job with this one. Too bad this library computer blocks the article at solargeneral.com on cosmotheism. Apparently truth isn't communist enough.

Ælfrun
Friday, September 9th, 2011, 12:20 AM
Life sucks and then you die...

Vindefense
Friday, September 9th, 2011, 10:23 PM
I know you're a Hegelian, so I'm interpreting the following through that lens.

Your response is interesting to me and quite thought provoking. A few problems arose in trying to understand your position though.

In your nature as mold example you seem to ignore that a mold by definition is a form and that form by necessity is order and order exists within definite parameters and structural boundaries and laws which define the shape, texture and size of the object. I admit, I am confused as to how you can observe this and still believe that nature is purposeless and chaotic with no intended end.



Since the simplest most ancient organic forms also remain the most successful. They've had no need to change. Natural law has required it.

Is it proper to say that species are de-evolving? The wolf for instance is far superior to any breed of dog in both ability and intelligence yet it is the mutt, nature's throw away, being dependent and loyal to man which has proliferated his kind.


Basically, you mistake the regimentation of life for evidence of will and purpose, when in truth it's simply statistical inevitability realized over millennia.


Well yes, if the universe is comprised of infinite time and space eventually all things that can be- will be and I really fail to see how you can reject one explanation that you see as fantastic and incredible and accept another just as.

Dun Holm
Saturday, September 10th, 2011, 07:23 AM
To reproduce and ensure the survival of your race.

Bernhard
Saturday, September 10th, 2011, 10:39 AM
Life sucks and then you die...

That doesn't sound very pagan now, does it?;)

Ingvaeonic
Saturday, September 10th, 2011, 11:19 AM
Life sucks and then you die...

Not bad. This is pretty good too:

Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.

Ælfrun
Saturday, September 10th, 2011, 11:25 AM
That doesn't sound very pagan now, does it?;)

No but sometimes you just have to accept the facts. :p

Hamar Fox
Sunday, September 11th, 2011, 02:33 PM
In your nature as mold example you seem to ignore that a mold by definition is a form and that form by necessity is order and order exists within definite parameters and structural boundaries and laws which define the shape, texture and size of the object. I admit, I am confused as to how you can observe this and still believe that nature is purposeless and chaotic with no intended end.

But an imperfect and arbitrary form, one that came to be through happenstance and absolute indifference. The universe is chaotic in its raw potential, but only those things endure which are compatible with its essential laws. No law in the universe is anything but itself. None works in concert (i.e. towards a specific end) with another -- it merely interacts with others through necessity, a necessity that takes us nowhere special. Merely what results is what results. Only one species that has ever arisen within the nexus of these laws has been capable of even conceiving of this 'nowhere' and purposelessness, which is to say, our own. But this species has ego enough to paint its existence as some divine realisation and culmination of the essence of the universe. We are the realisation of at least some of the universe's laws, true*, but so is every organism, every object, every quantum of energy, and no less so than we.

Who authored the laws is a question, but given their apparent non-direction and their various interpretation (figuratively) by species along the road of evolution (leading to scores of divergent life forms, none of which is truly dominant or able to bootstrap itself above all others by any objective standard but for its relationship with the mundane law of 'fitness'), the answer seems to be no one. If 'fitness' isn't the fundamental principle of the universe, then no species is sailing toward it.

* Though whether we interact with all of the laws of the universe or remotely approach its essence is doubtful. We occupy just one plane of existence. Science shows us there are others -- e.g. the quantum realm -- and that's just the other modes that fall within the scope of our understanding. How many exist beyond our understanding and will always remain there is unknown, possibly infinite.


Is it proper to say that species are de-evolving? The wolf for instance is far superior to any breed of dog in both ability and intelligence yet it is the mutt, nature's throw away, being dependent and loyal to man which has proliferated his kind.

De-evolution isn't really possible. The concept's based on a misunderstanding (or several) -- i.e. that nature and evolution have an 'end in sight' or any kind of vision at all, that species and organisms are ranked by degrees of 'deserving to exist', that types adapted to survive in more natural environments belong to the more deserving classes, that the more deserving should prevail, and that the drive in evolution is or ought to be from the 'lesser' to the 'higher' etc.. But all that's required of a species over time is that it should survive and procreate. All that's required of a particular organism is that it should survive (it's not even required to procreate). If these conditions are met, then they 'deserve' to live and are precisely equal in nature as regards that (although 'deserve' is a ridiculous anthropomorphism and moralisation which I'm only using to illustrate my point). If an individual organism survives but fails to procreate, it still 'deserves' to exist, but its would-be offspring don't (and hence don't exist). Picture a 700 lbs man who's been literally stuck in the bedroom of his trailer for the last 20 years, kept alive by the best medical minds is existence, his seed extracted, cloned and cryogenically preserved to eventually be shipped to the millions of women worldwide who've been touched by his sad, sad, story to the point of falling in love with him; versus, a young, healthy, athletic, smart, socially adept, charming man, who one night while in bed has a meteor land on his house. The first man is a reproductive success, while the second, to us superior, man has his seed eradicated from existence. Nature has no problem with this. It isn't a consciousness, but even if it were, it wouldn't care. For as long as the first man and his progeny steer well clear of nature and remain in a society that indulges them, they'll be as valid a biological strain as any other on Earth. The only things that perceive this as an injustice and defiance of the natural order are humans and their anthropomorphic conception of 'nature's will'.

Even if we were to slip back to the stage of bacteria, this wouldn't be an inherently good or bad change. We overrate consciousness. It's worked for us and our ancestors, but it's not necessary for biological success. It just benefitted our ancestors in a particular environment, with particular competiton and particular obstacles to overcome, and, of course, particular biological preconditions that allowed for a certain string of mutations to culminate in our present capacity to understand. As a species, though, even with our intellect as it is, we're not superior to bacteria (sure, we can invent Dettol, but could never dent their global numbers, whereas bacteria has hurt humanity quite considerably throughout our history -- and bacteria is more likely to survive a nuclear holocaust or meteor impact most mammals never could), and a return to bacterial forms wouldn't be a regression -- just a neutral change that occurred because of nothing but reproductive success.


Well yes, if the universe is comprised of infinite time and space eventually all things that can be- will be and I really fail to see how you can reject one explanation that you see as fantastic and incredible and accept another just as.

I don't see what's incredible about it. Once a few laws are given, everything else follows. The only real question is what particular things will result from those few givens. Things could have turned out a trillion different ways. But since we're observing things after the fact, it really takes the 'incredibility' out of things. It's like sitting in a cafe, watching a man walk in off the street and saying, "Wow. What were the chances that of all the people in the world that random man I've never seen before would have just walked in at that precise time?" Obviously if you'd predicted that before the fact, it'd be fantastic, but after the fact (which is what we're doing about the state of the universe) odds don't come into it -- it already happened.

Hagendorf
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 03:51 PM
eat junkfood, watch mtv, eat junkfood, sleep - and so on.

Auricomous
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 11:32 PM
The meaning of this life? Of being and existing in this particular physical reality, in this particular dimension?

Well, the purpose for being here is to attain a knowledge of good and evil, and to use that intimate knowledge of such things as a stark contrast to more fully know yourself... and maybe if you are lucky, to realize that you ARE the I Am that I Am, who is and is made of infinite unconditional love and boundless inexhaustible possibility and are experiencing yourself subjectively to know yourself more which serves to expand your awareness of the infinite and unknowable all that is, which amplifies the love and bliss which you feel and already are, forever and ever.

TrueEnglish
Saturday, September 17th, 2011, 12:09 PM
To be the eyes, ears, and conciousness of God.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, September 21st, 2011, 11:39 PM
I know I've already responded to this, but I've had a little longer to dwell on it, so I'd like to make a further response with some fresh ideas.


In your nature as mold example you seem to ignore that a mold by definition is a form and that form by necessity is order and order exists within definite parameters and structural boundaries and laws which define the shape, texture and size of the object. I admit, I am confused as to how you can observe this and still believe that nature is purposeless and chaotic with no intended end.


I find no truth in accidentals. Children are always using this excuse and it doesn't fly with me.

If these laws are the foundation of our existence, then it's correct to say that they're the preconditions of our existence -- which is to say that to us they're pure givens, the soil out of which everything reducible to them -- including reason -- has grown and evolved. The evolution of reason was a mere negotiation of the various dynamics of these givens, a product and mapping of their core assumptions. Our understanding emerged within the nexus of these laws, and by virtue of evolving -- or let's scrap that word -- being the product of those laws, or being a mirror of the laws, if you prefer, can't at the same time be the cause of said laws. Therefore, laws defy reason (both in the sense of rationality and of purpose).

Second, if we suppose these laws, or givens, are inherently rational, and it's from this fact that we can say reason echoes truth and can penetrate the core of every law to which we're exposed, then these 'givens' can't be fundamental (i.e. can't be absolute givens), since everything requires an 'in terms of' except for absolute givens. If rational, these 'givens' can be understood in terms of rationality, thereby disqualifying them from being true fundamentals. (As to whether rationality itself is the one true fundamental of the universe, I'll touch on this below). Without fundamentally irrational givens, no thought could ever get off the ground, since everything would be 'in terms of' something earlier, leading to an infinite regress. Therefore, again, we can conclude that laws defy reason.

We can't comprehend or explain away our preconditions, since that would require reason to transcend itself. Nothing can understand itself in terms of itself -- yet nothing can be anything but in terms of itself, thus all things are encased in and fated to remain in their own species-level solipsism. Understanding the hows and whys of givens is essentially akin to understanding the construction of a soccer stadium in terms of the 'off-side rule' (sorry, I know to little of sport to offer an American example) and various other rules of the game. Incommensurates. That said, we can understand the various laws around us, including those that precipitated organic life, simply because none of those laws are fundamental, but mere phantoms of 'deeper' laws (though I suppose my use of 'deeper' gives a false impression of closer proximity to truth). What I mean by this is that all can be understood in terms of other laws (e.g. the discovery of the quantum level), which in turn themselves can be understood in terms of other laws. This could eventually result in two things: the arrival at an absolute 'rock bottom' law or laws, or, as I'd maintain, an infinite process of discovery after discovery after discovery.

Our understanding always hits the infinite in its striving to uncover core truths. To me, the infinite is basically the intellect's 'error message', the result of the mind's overreaching itself into territories it was never meant to explore and is absolutely incapable of comprehending. No fundamental law -- in my opinion -- will ever be struck upon, simply because reason can never become the object of its own critique (at a fundamental level). Every paradox of reason incorporates the infinite, even the liar's paradox (which is essentially an infinite entaglement of 'if this then that, but if that then this, where both conditions are incompatible). And, yes, I understand the irony of using reason to discredit reason, but again another paradox emerges: If my argument is right that reason is false, then my argument is false, since it used reason. But if my argument is false because reason is false, then my argument is right ad infinitum.

Perhaps I digressed a little, but my overall point is this: Not only is reason not the basis of all things and the language of the universe, but it's actually quite severely flawed. But whether it is or isn't, it certainly can't be employed in understanding its own origin and preconditions (which is a logical absurdity, as reason itself acknowledges -- i.e. it would be a fallacy by its own standards, much less transcendent standards). Whatever the 'explanation' for the laws you talk about (and considering 'explanation' is a concept familar to us, and is based on the meeting of various requirements of reason, it's false to say that, even in the loosest sense, these things can be explained), it falls far beyond our comprehension. If you can comprehend a concept of God, again in even the loosest sense, even by extrapolation of these 'laws', then you can be sure that that concept is way off point. Basically, whatever concept you, or even Hegel, can concoct is wrong.


Well yes, if the universe is comprised of infinite time and space eventually all things that can be- will be and I really fail to see how you can reject one explanation that you see as fantastic and incredible and accept another just as.

I want to explain this a bit better too. I've used this analogy before, but I think it's a decent one: Let's say you had a sack full of tickets numbered one to a trillion. You draw one, let's say ticket three billion and two. The fallacy you commit is the same as saying, "there was only a one in a trillion chance I'd draw ticket three billion and two, therefore it's too unlikely to have happened." Before the fact, had you predicted you'd pick that ticket, then sure, it was incredible. After the fact, it's not incredible at all. Nobody predicted the universe would turn out this way before it did, hence there's nothing incredible. What stumps you is that the supporting dimensions of science's stance on the matter are negative; i.e. if the 'likely' event of the universe not existing 'occurred' (note how language fights against expression of my point here), there'd be no one around to remark on how everything turned out according to the odds. The universe existed for trillions of years, or, supposing an infinite process of expansion and contraction, then an infinite number of years, of nothing happening. Hell, life doesn't occur all the time. There's absolutely no abiogenesis going on anywhere around me at all.

And, yes, life can only occur where a material basis provides. It can't just occur in deep space or non-space (at least not the types of life we're familiar with), so, yes, the odds really are stacked against it. But if in some regions of the multiverse matter prevails, then at various points of its infinite existence life may raise its head from time to time. Of course, when this happens, the 'higher' instantiations of said life would endlessly remark about how unlikely it is they could have arisen through chance and devise various fanciful religious and philosophical interpretations of things.

Roderic
Thursday, September 22nd, 2011, 12:21 AM
DaEnRwqgppU

Hamar Fox
Thursday, September 22nd, 2011, 12:26 PM
To be the eyes, ears, and conciousness of God.

:-O

I don't get why there are so many religious Englishmen on Skadi. Thankfully I never meet any in real life. I usually see this type of weirdo shit by Americans online, but only on Skadi do I see it from English people -- who really should know better.

Nagelfar
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 04:04 AM
:-O

I don't get why there are so many religious Englishmen on Skadi. Thankfully I never meet any in real life. I usually see this type of weirdo shit by Americans online, but only on Skadi do I see it from English people -- who really should know better.

When someone says their purpose in the meaning of life is to be the "...consciousness of God", that doesn't sound like a very traditional theistic statement to me, at least not one an atheist would be so aghast at as you here seem to be. As it implies God has no consciousness of "his" own, beyond the human mind in nature (the 'required' purpose of the human, in this context). Which seems very Spinozistic to me, something that traditional theists would rally the 'pantheistic form of atheism' moniker against.

"God" as a word is just a label, and one must really use context logically in the modern diversity of beliefs held to today. If I hear an atheist proclaim "Goddamn!", I do not lodge the assertion of hypocrisy against them.

I myself am not an atheist, but I respect atheism as generally healthier & more viable than a great many interpretations of theism. I do not believe atheism becomes a healthier alternative however, when the use of the word God as a philosophic concept is invariably pigeonholed & relegated to a pleonasm for all rigid fundamentalist literal interpretations traditionally.

Ingvaeonic
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 04:39 AM
:-O

I don't get why there are so many religious Englishmen on Skadi. Thankfully I never meet any in real life. I usually see this type of weirdo shit by Americans online, but only on Skadi do I see it from English people -- who really should know better.

Actually, I have wondered about this myself and I've found it surprising. In the real world, I've never known a religious English man or woman outside the clergy, and I've known quite a few. The English seem far more secular and pragmatically naturalistic to me than some of the responses from some English Skadi members would tend to indicate. Who else but the English could or would have produced a Richard Dawkins or a Stephen Hawking?

EQ Fighter
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 05:40 AM
kkSFIWzi7aA

LOL!

Sorry just had to do that!
:D

Hamar Fox
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 03:38 PM
When someone says their purpose in the meaning of life is to be the "...consciousness of God", that doesn't sound like a very traditional theistic statement to me, at least not one an atheist would be so aghast at as you here seem to be. As it implies God has no consciousness of "his" own, beyond the human mind in nature (the 'required' purpose of the human, in this context). Which seems very Spinozistic to me, something that traditional theists would rally the 'pantheistic form of atheism' moniker against.

The problem with theosophy is that no one is drawn to it but those already with religious inclinations instilled in them. Spinozism is basically 'tautologism' (a term I just made up). The only reason 'God' is thrown into the equation, and as well with Kant's system, is the time in which the philosophy was conceived. Instead of saying 'the great unknown', as any honest logician should have said, they simply said 'God'. Spinozism speaks at bottom of nature, and then disingenously calls it 'God'. Kant was even worse. He actually developed a rich and Godless philosophical system -- one that I respect --, and then unabashedly tacked on 'God' on the shaky grounds that only God could have authored and imbued us with intuitive moral law.

The conditions that led them to speak of God no longer prevail in England, among Anglo-Saxons, at least. The only people here who fall back on 'smart religiosity'/theosophy are Irish-descended Catholics, and Pakis (Negroes too are very religious, but they don't really understand the complex stuff). This is because their religious background subtly distorts the path and hence the philosophical resting place that their 'logic' takes them. This is the case in every instance. Nobody looks at theological arguments dispassionately and concludes they make sense.

Anglo-Saxons (and Scots) shouldn't have this primitive superstitious instinct today. We're a scientific people. We never really had it even when science and philosophy compelled us to believe, and we jumped at the first opportunity to escape superstition that presented itself to us (i.e. through the most indifferent religion ever conceived -- Protestantism). And since no environmental reasons any longer obtain to influence us or pressure us in a theistic direction, we've thankfully become among the most Godless races in existence (I believe Scandinavians and the Dutch pip us to that post, though).

'TrueEnglish' really should change his name if he's to continue to believe.


I myself am not an atheist, but I respect atheism as generally healthier & more viable than a great many interpretations of theism. I do not believe atheism becomes a healthier alternative however, when the use of the word God as a philosophic concept is invariably pigeonholed & relegated to a pleonasm for all rigid fundamentalist literal interpretations traditionally.

True. But I believe they derive from the same origin, and the dishonesty present in all arguments of that nature (i.e. in calling the unkown 'God') stems from a deeply irrational and un-English instinct. If there were logical arguments for the existence of God, then Englishmen who accepted such arguments would be in perfect harmony with the rational and scientific nature of the English. However, having waited in vain for such arguments to appear for the last two thousand years, I think we're ready as a people to move beyond consideration of God, and leave it to the Negroes to have prayer circles and to speak in tongues, and other creepy, primitive, tribal shit unbefitting a race of inventors and conquerors. And, yes, as you said, theosophy is more sophisticated. However, IMO, it's a merely sophisticated justification for primitive instincts not yet shaken off.

Nagelfar
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 06:53 PM
True. But I believe they derive from the same origin, and the dishonesty present in all arguments of that nature (i.e. in calling the unkown 'God') stems from a deeply irrational and un-English instinct. If there were logical arguments for the existence of God, then Englishmen who accepted such arguments would be in perfect harmony with the rational and scientific nature of the English. However, having waited in vain for such arguments to appear for the last two thousand years, I think we're ready as a people to move beyond consideration of God, and leave it to the Negroes to have prayer circles and to speak in tongues, and other creepy, primitive, tribal shit unbefitting a race of inventors and conquerors. And, yes, as you said, theosophy is more sophisticated. However, IMO, it's a merely sophisticated justification for primitive instincts not yet shaken off.

Fair enough. Though I wouldn't tag the "sophisticated understanding of God" as being simply the 'unknown' but rather the non-naturalistic constituent of existence. Science is basically empiricalism within philosophically, and within philosophy there will always be that which exists outside empiricalism even if empiricalism extends everywhere. (e.g. the conception of 'spirit' as 'actus purus' not in the potency of object). I have a sense of import for this, I just do not ascribe to it things which were obviously ascribed to it for the coercion of individuals over individuals historically under the pretenses of superstition.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 12:39 PM
Fair enough. Though I wouldn't tag the "sophisticated understanding of God" as being simply the 'unknown' but rather the non-naturalistic constituent of existence. Science is basically empiricalism within philosophically, and within philosophy there will always be that which exists outside empiricalism even if empiricalism extends everywhere. (e.g. the conception of 'spirit' as 'actus purus' not in the potency of object). I have a sense of import for this, I just do not ascribe to it things which were obviously ascribed to it for the coercion of individuals over individuals historically under the pretenses of superstition.

But the non-naturalistic constituent of existence is Kant's thing-in-itself, which is only conceivable to us a negative or a host of negatives (i.e. not temporal, not spatial, not material etc. etc.). I don't know if you read post #60. I suspect it was a tl;dr job for most people, but in it I arrive at the conclusion that neither reason (i.e. philosophy) nor empiricism (science) can lead us to knowledge of the thing-in-itself, and I offer some arguments as to why. Reason isn't universally applicable, since it developed merely on and in terms of the plane of existence humans occupy, and can't extend beyond that plane. Empricism unveils some holes in reason and logic, and advances our understanding a little further, but still, it relies on the evidence of the senses and the capacities of the human intellect, and is thereby also heavily weighted, incorporates perspective, not universality, and is likewise incapable of delivering truth and absolute knowledge at our feet.

But 'God' is such a loaded term, and however detached it can claim to be from traditional religious literalism, it still carries a fair bit of illogical baggage, such as the implication of 'consciousness' or 'understanding', 'intention' or 'purpose', 'unity' and 'order' etc. which I consider unjustified. The thing-in-itself is not anything we can understand. We can understand 'understanding' and 'reason' and 'intention' and 'order' etc., hence the thing-in-itself is none of those things. It's neither one thing nor its opposite. It's pure incomprehensiblity. And not in the sense that 'God is incomprehensible', but in the sense that no term or concept we apply to it is valid or further our understanding of it whatsoever.

TrueEnglish
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 12:47 PM
:-O

I don't get why there are so many religious Englishmen on Skadi. Thankfully I never meet any in real life. I usually see this type of weirdo shit by Americans online, but only on Skadi do I see it from English people -- who really should know better.
Don't confuse spiritual or faithful with religious and make assumptions, what you meant to say is "I don't get why you're a believer", I'm not a believer, I'm not an unbeliever either. But I do think it more logical to support the institutions of religion than not.

After all, ultimately it is not the message that is so important, but our obedience to it.

Fyrgenholt
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 03:43 PM
The meaning of life appears to be the maintenance of balance. Of course, what more can we do put ponder ;)

Nagelfar
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 05:08 AM
But the non-naturalistic constituent of existence is Kant's thing-in-itself

Your first assumption is where you got me all wrong. I'm a follower of Giovanni Gentile on this regard, the naturalistic/external realist position is more akin to the 'thing-in-itself' than is the non-naturalistic "actus purus" of ideation

Gardisten
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 05:31 AM
Reading, of course.

Hamar Fox
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 10:31 AM
Your first assumption is where you got me all wrong. I'm a follower of Giovanni Gentile on this regard, the naturalistic/external realist position is more akin to the 'thing-in-itself' than is the non-naturalistic "actus purus" of ideation

Right, but I'm saying the Kantian thing-in-itself is the only thing that should be drawn on the basis of logic. Everything else is utter drivel. And I don't think Kantianism is realism or naturalism at all, but I supoose we look at it differently.

paraplethon
Sunday, October 16th, 2011, 11:27 AM
If One into Two is Three, then by Three we unify Two to One.

BritishLad
Sunday, October 16th, 2011, 11:30 AM
U0kJHQpvgB8

There ya go! Gotta love Monty Python! :D

Wuotans Krieger
Saturday, November 24th, 2018, 04:21 PM
I believe the meaning of life is to experience the world in a positive way (have fun) and to share experience (make others people have fun, share your good moments with them, etc).

Please discuss.

To seek 'meaning' in life is a human, all too human trait.