What IS the "meaning of life"? Does it differ person-to-person?

[Morm]

Good post, Cantab.

I think a problem also exists with our desperate need to rationalize the world around us in a favorable way. The whole concept of a loving God having given us dominion over the entire universe after making us in his godly image is pretty self-flattering and tends to give us a value on ourselves that far exceeds a realistic measure of our worth. It's because of this sentiment, along with our own natural selfish natures, that we hold the opinion that there must be an answer.

That being said, there are those of us who are rational. To confirm the above, I can suggest a rationalities that would show that there likely isn't some meaning to life:

It's not universally known, observable or even constant.

If you ask any two people, other than say two identical crazies from some wing-nut hardcore church perhaps, you'll get two different answers. Of course, I think we all know what those two identical wing-nuts would say the purpose of life is. The answer we are looking for is not observable. We do not live in a universe where answers are inherently unobservable except where skewed by our perception (see: metaphysics) and given enough time, we will be able to find answers to any answerable question. Kind of like a God of the gaps mentality but replaced with "the answer to this stupid question" of the gaps mentality. Finally, if you were to ask an impoverished person from Ethiopia this question and then ask some gigantic fatass playing WoW in Texas, you'd get two amazingly different answers. Why could all of this be? Perception.

 

[drifblim70]

Part of the meaning of life is that is so seemingly meaningless. If a life is intended toward one particular purpose or goal, what sort of life is that? If a chicken is raised on a farm to be slaughtered for food, its purpose/meaning is to provide nutrition to someone, and i sure as hell wouldn't want to be that chicken. Likewise, if I had a destiny, I'd prefer it to be a shifting destiny, because if I knew for example that I only lived to please God, I'd wonder why he wanted/needed the praise so much, which would make me take a sour view on my own relatively pointless life. If life is meant to fill an end, may that end never come! I want to decide what my life is for, and if the answer is 42, good! I don't want to know life's question! In that case, the purpose of life may be to discover/experience the world--i.e. to observe, to question, to "live" as some stereotypically put it. how like a god...

 

[Obsessed]

Seriously, can someone not mention God without three guys in a row jumping on him with some snide one liner?

I think people had a problem with him stating that the universe was clearly designed. Had he not made such a bold claim I don't think people would have had any problems with his post.

I like to ask him to make a post without essentially saying "lol you atheists can't you see this is too complex?" Especially since the complexity argument has been thrashed so throughly countless times.

I don't believe life has a specific purpose, nor do I think it needs one. I can enjoy my time alive even if I feel it is essentially meaningless in the long run.

 

[Morm]

When someone comes to a thread like this saying the purpose of life is believe in God you have to expect an intellectual backlash from reasonable human beings.

 

[Phantom_IV]

Perhaps the meaning of life can be deduced from its origins. Life exists because molecules and structures that could replicate did so and became more and more plentiful and complex over time. Since the beginning of life, the mission of every organism has been to ensure the survival of the next generation. Those that lacked this mission were eliminated, as they did not have a generation to succeed them. It would follow that our mission as humans is the same, even though our methods and means have increased dramatically in complexity.

 

[billymills]

I think Cantab and Morm have hit the nail on the head here. The only purpose is whatever you set for yourself.

I personally like Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensch, because it sets a productive purpose to the world which is essentially self-improvement and is very based on the earthly phenomena rather than any future life or heaven.

When someone comes to a thread like this saying the purpose of life is believe in God you have to expect an intellectual backlash from reasonable human beings.

lol.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Reproduce, hopefully producing some viable, well-adjusted offspring capable of doing well in society and rearing their own good offspring, and continuing the cycle henceforth.

. . . long enough for someone to figure out how to get humanity off this rock before it blows up and hopefully continue the species indefinitely if possible.

 

[MrIndigo]

I don't believe there is a "meaning" of life.

 

[Morm]

Reproduce, hopefully producing some viable, well-adjusted offspring capable of doing well in society and rearing their own good offspring, and continuing the cycle henceforth.

. . . long enough for someone to figure out how to get humanity off this rock before it blows up and hopefully continue the species indefinitely if possible.

Speaking from a selfish gene standpoint, you're right, the purpose is to procreate and survive.

 

[WeGotTheJazz]

...monkey?

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Reproduce, hopefully producing some viable, well-adjusted offspring capable of doing well in society and rearing their own good offspring, and continuing the cycle henceforth.

. . . long enough for someone to figure out how to get humanity off this rock before it blows up and hopefully continue the species indefinitely if possible.

That is the mere purpose for an animal that is not free ; humans are advanced, they are far beyond that point. Our ''goal'' for living is to achieve a state of happiness, not to reproduce and continue our specie. I am not saying that this isn't part of life, because it is and I can't deny that, but it isn't our ''ultimate goal'' as of now if there can be such a thing.

 

[Wob_Marley]

Haha, not a question I expected to see posted on a Pokemon forum.

I believe life is the adventure of trying to find your own "meaning of life". No one person can tell you what it is, and only God and other inspired individuals can help you find it. For me, the meaning of life is to enjoy it, and make an impact in the world that I can judge as meaningful.

Just remember: If your constantly sitting around pondering the meaning of life, than your not really LIVING.

 

[Desolate]

Haha, not a question I expected to see posted on a Pokemon forum.

Well, hence why I posted it in the off-topic forum; I want to major in Philosophy, and observing the trends and thoughts of people on a subject like this is interesting, and I believed it could promote ntelligent, elaborate discusion.

 

[Morm]

That is the mere purpose for an animal that is not free ; humans are advanced, they are far beyond that point.

I'm sorry but that just reeks of arrogance and ignorance. There are many animals that enjoy a rich and emotional life and to think otherwise is an exceptionally narrow view. Would you care for me to back this up?

Our ''goal'' for living is to achieve a state of happiness, not to reproduce and continue our specie. I am not saying that this isn't part of life, because it is and I can't deny that, but it isn't our ''ultimate goal'' as of now if there can be such a thing.

So first thing here you directly say what you believe to be the purpose; then you say "if there can be such a thing" as if you're not too sure. I suggest you do more thinkin' before postin', sir, and I do mean that as a suggestion and not an insult.

 

[Chou Toshio]

That is the mere purpose for an animal that is not free ; humans are advanced, they are far beyond that point. Our ''goal'' for living is to achieve a state of happiness, not to reproduce and continue our specie. I am not saying that this isn't part of life, because it is and I can't deny that, but it isn't our ''ultimate goal'' as of now if there can be such a thing.

Oh please. Define "advanced," or "free." If you are speaking of the mere complexity of our cognitive activities, than there is little different between us and cows as long as you widen the perspective. It is a difference of degree of complexity, not a difference of kind. Compared to a water flea, a squirrel has incredibly complex cognitive functions. From the perception of a human, squirrels are incredibly simple. It is not so difficult to imagine that a being with even greater "intelligence" could exist. At what degree is an existance "advanced" or "free"? That is completely subjective (just like at what point does a pokemon become Uber, lol).

If you really think it is about "being advanced," consider: What about mental retards?

Hell, even amongst "us humans," there are vast differences of intellectual capacity. Keep in mind that "a species" is only a temporary identity, and does not hold its boundaries or shape over generations. One species can easily split into 2, 4, 6 completely different groups of organisms over time. We and crayfish, at some point, share common ancestors and the some common genes. It is more accurate to consider ourselves as independant genetic identities. Simply singular members of the entire group of "living things."

The concept of there truly being any absolute rules or purpose to an existance simply because it happens to exist as part of the biologically temporary group loosely defined as "humananity"-- is laughable. From a logical stand point. Such thinking has place in law and social structure, but no place in true philosophy. One can forgive the founding fathers for such a statement for they look to govern, but a philosopher discussing the purpose of life would be wise to stay away from such thinking.

The point is that intelligence (or the mere complexity of the brain's processes) is no measure of a being's existance or value. There really is no real fundamental difference between us and monkeys, rats or even lizards or insects. When you consider that the genetic group "humanity" is permeable, changable and ultimately temporary in all likelihood (likely to change even if its descendants survive), our identity is not as members of a species but as independant genetic entitites-- in other words, simply as living beings like all other living beings.

Our allegiance is not to the species, but only to our own, independant genes (and to some extent the clans, societies and governments that play a role in successfully protecting and reproducing those genes).

The ultimate "meaning" behind our lives is no different from that of bats, birds, and all of nature's other creatures, much like bukkake kitten pointed out. It really is arrogant to think otherwise.


You posted as if saying there is some higher meaning to life than successfully reproducing.


To me, that goal in and of itself is a great and lofty one to which one should aspire-- for us humans too, becoming great and successful parents is no easy feat. Sure there are plenty of individuals who, for various reasons, fail to achieve the purpose of life, but then that is the same for individuals for many other species as well. Survival of the fittest-- though in humanity's case, try watch the movie Idiocracy-- it might be survival of the stupid. lol

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

I'm sorry but that just reeks of arrogance and ignorance. There are many animals that enjoy a rich and emotional life and to think otherwise is an exceptionally narrow view. Would you care for me to back this up?

It is not because X animal is able to enjoy an emotional life or that other X animal derives pleasure for sexual activities that it makes him able to be free. Mea culpa if I sounded arrogant.

So first thing here you directly say what you believe to be the purpose; then you say "if there can be such a thing" as if you're not too sure. I suggest you do more thinkin' before postin', sir, and I do mean that as a suggestion and not an insult.

I simply stated my opinion based on the possible existence of a ''goal'' in life. Well how can a be sure? I do not claim to hold every truth, if any. I suggest you do more readin' before postin', sir, and I do mean that as a suggestion and not an insult.

@ ChouToshio When I say advanced, I refer that compared to all other being on our earth, we are the only one that are free and we are free for we do not rely on instinct, we are able to think and make decisions. You seem not to understand that these simple cognitive abilities are what makes all the difference between us and a rat. Oh, please enlighten one, teach me your true and absolute philosophy. More seriously, philosophy goes hand to hand with societies, law, government, etc.. I am sorry if I implied there was some sort of deity about to give us all the truths and knowledge, for there is none. No I don't mean there is a higher meaning of life. I am simply stating that the purpose in life is to be happy.

 

[billymills]

I hope you don't honestly think you decide anything, anymore than any other animal does.

We JUST had a discussion on free will. Please don't tell me you ignored it completely.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

I hope you don't honestly think you decide anything, anymore than any other animal does.

I hope you understand that we are free, unlike the animals and that we actually are able to make decisions not based on instinct.

 

[cantab]

The differences between humans and other species are quantitative, not qualitative. Many species are able to make decisions "not based on instinct". Indeed, to my knowledge no-one has ever explained exactly what "instinct" is. It has become a catch-all term used to refer to animal behaviour that does not appear to have been taught by parents. As such it probably refers to a variety of processes at different cognitive levels.

 

[Donny Mae.]

The meaning of life for all creatures is to pass on their genes, through sexual reproduction. Well, that's what my science teacher told me XD

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

The differences between humans and other species are quantitative, not qualitative. Many species are able to make decisions "not based on instinct". Indeed, to my knowledge no-one has ever explained exactly what "instinct" is. It has become a catch-all term used to refer to animal behaviour that does not appear to have been taught by parents. As such it probably refers to a variety of processes at different cognitive levels.

Instincts are basically ''abilities'' animals are born with and/or that they learn quickly and that they are predisposed to learning. There is not so much of a ''deep" meaning within instinct like you ''claimed". Unlikes animals, we humans do not have instinct; we are free. However, you could state that we do have some sort of instinct for that subject is still open to debate. Provide us with examples and information and evidence that some animal are actually free like humans? One simple action, made by X animals that is not based solely on instinct does not mean that this animals is free like us.

 

[Brain]

Provide us with examples and information and evidence that some animal are actually free like humans? One simple action, made by X animals that is not based solely on instinct does not mean that this animals is free like us.

I don't know what kind of evidence you expect. We obviously can't watch all animals all the time, and making experiments is difficult, which means that we only have patchy evidence about animal intelligence and behavior. This being said, we are constantly surprised by them, and masses of evidence seem to converge to showing that almost all human behaviors are highly refined versions of primitive behaviors observed in other species. As cantab aptly said, the differences are quantitative, not qualitative.

I don't see how this, this or this could possibly be construed as instinctive behavior. And that's just crows. Dolphins have been observed to call each other by name and make up their own games. Several species pass the mirror test, suggesting a form of self-awareness. Elephants are altruistic and have death rituals. All in all, animals show such a wide range of interesting behavior that I think evidence should be needed to show that they are not free, rather than the opposite (whatever "free" means). Remember, getting this data is difficult, we can't read their minds, and we don't know the best way to communicate with them - the least of things is to give them the benefit of doubt, especially since they have consistently exceeded our expectations all through the last century of experiments.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

I don't know what kind of evidence you expect. We obviously can't watch all animals all the time, and making experiments is difficult, which means that we only have patchy evidence about animal intelligence and behavior. This being said, we are constantly surprised by them, and masses of evidence seem to converge to showing that almost all human behaviors are highly refined versions of primitive behaviors observed in other species. As cantab aptly said, the differences are quantitative, not qualitative.

I don't see how this, this or this could possibly be construed as instinctive behavior. And that's just crows. Dolphins have been observed to call each other by name and make up their own games. Several species pass the mirror test, suggesting a form of self-awareness. Elephants are altruistic and have death rituals. All in all, animals show such a wide range of interesting behavior that I think evidence should be needed to show that they are not free, rather than the opposite (whatever "free" means). Remember, getting this data is difficult, we can't read their minds, and we don't know the best way to communicate with them - the least of things is to give them the benefit of doubt, especially since they have consistently exceeded our expectations all through the last century of experiments.

Studying these ''types o behavior'' in animals could be hard, I will grant you that. However we did do it when we looked deeper in the subject of homosexual animal. Also, it is quite obvious that we show ''evolved'' form of primitive behaviors for we are an ''evolved'' version of other species. Being surprised by an animal X doesn't mean that the animal in question is free like us humans. It simply means that we did not study that animal X enough to fully understand it and the way he reacts to his environment.

Before I talk about the videos and articles you linked, here are the criteria that need to be matched in order to call a behavior ''instinct'': a) be automatic, b) be irresistible, c) occur at some point in development, d) be triggered by some event in the environment, e) occur in every member of the species, f) be unmodifiable, and g) govern behavior for which the organism needs no training (although the organism may profit from experience and to that degree the behavior is modifiable). All the behaviors of the animals in the article you provide me match these set criteria. Also, on a side note the elephant having death ritual is still a debated thing, but it's not really important for this discussion. The fact that animals are unable to make any decisions not solely based or partially based on instinct proves the fact that they aren't free. Freedom is simply the ability of choosing and making decisions not based on instincts.

 

[Morm]

I hope you understand that we are free, unlike the animals and that we actually are able to make decisions not based on instinct.

Octopods and cuttlefish (and many other cephalopods) display extremely complex displays showing how they are feeling and intentions (or false intentions).

Any primate really shows a lot of facial expression as a way to communicate emotions or intentions.

Cetaceans have an entire language that conveys much more than "I'm hungry/horney/whatever", but more research is needed.

want more?

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Octopods and cuttlefish (and many other cephalopods) display extremely complex displays showing how they are feeling and intentions (or false intentions).

Any primate really shows a lot of facial expression as a way to communicate emotions or intentions.

Cetaceans have an entire language that conveys much more than "I'm hungry/horney/whatever", but more research is needed.

want more?

It is not because it is complex that it cannot be instincts. There is a type of monkey, if I recall correctly, that derives pleasure by sex. Does this mean that this monkey made that choice on his own? No. It simply means that the instinct of this animal pushes him to have this ''pleasure-sex''. These animals do such things because they react to stimuli from their environment, which is part of an instinct-based reaction.