GENIUS FORUMS

I can see where it would be an evolutionary benefit for humans who wanted meaning to their lives to have survived, and therefore passed on their genes including the ones tainted with a desire for meaning, but I don't believe that there is a meaning to life.

Do you? If so, what do you believe the meaning of life is?

"Meaning of Life" is a trite and banal question.

More pertinent is, What is the purpose of life.

It's not breeding, marrying, copulating, hording, or any of those other things that ignorant people value. These are clues as to how not to conduct your life, if you wish to be wise.

How to answer "what is the meaning of life?" depends entirely on how one wants to interpret the question. Hence, Douglas Adams suggestion that the answer is 42, whereas such an answer cannot be understood, because we don't understand what the real question is to begin with. Obviously, there isn't a real question, but the question has whatever meaning is intended by whomever asks. I take it that it's generally taken to ask "what significance does life have?" This is open to interpretation, and the answer depends on how the answerer wants to think about it. For many, I should think, the term "life" describes too large a set of things to give a clear answer that encompasses the entire set. What does a bacteria have in common with a human being? A few properties certainly, but the only real relation between members of the set "life" is a family resemblance as Wittgenstein would say; or otherwise, the fact that all the members fit the criteria established by the commonly accepted scientific definition.

What is the meaning of life? I'd say 42 is as good an answer as any.

prince wrote:"Meaning of Life" is a trite and banal question.

More pertinent is, What is the purpose of life.

You understood the intent of the question, as evidenced by you gave the same question behind the words with different words. "Purpose" can be assigned, but is not inherent to life itself.

Even the purpose of becoming wise is a purpose assigned to life by certain individuals.

There are causes for why we are here, but there are no real reasons.

The only meaning one's life has is the meaning they give it. So choose your meaning wisely, you only have one shot.

The meaning of Life itself, or even if there is "The meaning," is necessarily resigned to the category "Unknowable," as far as we are concerned.

The meaning or purpose of one's own life can be discerned, if one does not already know it, by means of a Vision Quest. At least, traditionally this was the method in many cultures. Focused, deep introspection over time also works.

prince wrote: "Meaning of Life" is a trite and banal question.

I agree.

More pertinent is, What is the purpose of life.

I think that depends upon the context of "Life." (Note: Life itself or human life.)

My question: Why Life?---; what purpose is there to be "life" instead of "not life," lifelessness?

Life is not necessary to the universe---which functions whether living things are present to acknowledge such functions and interactions or not---and every living thing exists for a limited time, in order to die and continue the cycle. It's irrelevant.

prince wrote:It's not breeding, marrying, copulating, hording, or any of those other things that ignorant people value. These are clues as to how not to conduct your life, if you wish to be wise.

As far as human life goes, that's a very sensible purpose.

Nordicvs wrote: Life is not necessary to the universe---which functions whether living things are present to acknowledge such functions and interactions or not---and every living thing exists for a limited time, in order to die and continue the cycle. It's irrelevant.

Unsupportable assertions.

Life exists so the universe can see itself. That's my final answer (until I come up with a cleverer one).

Carl G wrote: Unsupportable assertions.

Your statement of "unsupportable assertions" is an unsupported assertion.

There is no point to Life. The universe unfolds and churns and expands whether life is around or not.

Prove it wrong.

Nordicvs wrote:

Carl G wrote: Unsupportable assertions.

Your statement of "unsupportable assertions" is an unsupported assertion.

There is no point to Life. The universe unfolds and churns and expands whether life is around or not.

Prove it wrong.

It is not my job to prove it wrong. It is yours to prove it right. You made the assertion. You stated it as a fact. I merely pointed out that it is not a provable statement. It's just your opinion, and that's fine.

Without life, planets would still spin and orbit. Gravity and all the other laws of the universe would still work. Therefore, Nord's statement "The universe unfolds and churns and expands whether life is around or not. " is correct.

"There is no point to life" can not be directly proven as it is a negative - but since no one can prove that there is a pont to life, it is reasonable to consider it true by default.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Without life, planets would still spin and orbit. Gravity and all the other laws of the universe would still work. Therefore, Nord's statement "The universe unfolds and churns and expands whether life is around or not. " is correct.

We don't know this. We do not know that the planets themselves are not alive. We do not know what is alive and what is not. For all we know it is all alive.

"There is no point to life" can not be directly proven as it is a negative - but since no one can prove that there is a pont to life, it is reasonable to consider it true by default.

No it is not reasonable to consider it true by default. We can only consider true what we can know for certain. Otherwise it is simply provisional, possible, and perhaps probable.

Carl G wrote:We do not know what is alive and what is not. For all we know it is all alive.

Okay Kelly, you can define life any way you want to - it is just a word.

Neither is there a provable point to the Totality - so my original point still stands. Existence itself is ultimatly pointless. We can assign a point to it, but Being has no inherent point.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Carl G wrote:We do not know what is alive and what is not. For all we know it is all alive.

Okay Kelly, you can define life any way you want to - it is just a word.

Kelly?

Neither is there a provable point to the Totality - so my original point still stands.

I agree, there is no point to the Totality provable. This does not mean there isn't a point, but simply that we cannot conclude the matter of universal purpose or meaning one way or the other.

Existence itself is ultimatly pointless. We can assign a point to it, but Being has no inherent point.

Now you contradict yourself by claiming Existence is pointless, which is something which, again, you cannot know.

The idea of the Totality having a purpose is a contradiction in terms and therefore meaningless. Only finite things are capable of experiencing lack and thus have the motivation to formulate a purpose. The Totality isn't a finite thing.

The Totality isn't a conscious being; it doesn't have any form; it doesn't lack for anything; it is timeless and unchanging. It is non-dual in nature, which means that it is beyond all dualities - whether it be dualities of reality and illusion, existence and non-existence, or purpose and purposelessness.

In short, to the degree that you think the Totality can have a purpose, to that same degree you are misunderstanding what the Totality is.

-

David Quinn wrote:The idea of the Totality having a purpose is a contradiction in terms and therefore meaningless.

You say the idea is meaningless, I say it is undiscussible. You say it is contradiction, I say it is unknowable.

I think I understand your logic. I'm not sure logic alone can answer the question of purpose or no purpose.

Only finite things are capable of experiencing lack and thus have the motivation to formulate a purpose.

Must every purpose stem from a lack? Can something which is everything still grow, still create new things? Could it have a Consciousness? A Will?

Is it possible for a human to ascertain the answers simply by using deduction? I don't think so.

Carl G wrote:Kelly?

I was teasing you a bit. She redefines words also.

Carl G wrote: You say the idea is meaningless, I say it is undiscussible.

Yet, we are discussing it.

Carl G wrote:You say it is contradiction, I say it is unknowable.

The Totality includes all points, so how could it have a point of its own?

Carl G wrote:I'm not sure logic alone can answer the question of purpose or no purpose.

Logic is the key to the Truth, and the Truth has all the answers.

Carl G wrote:

DQ wrote:Only finite things are capable of experiencing lack and thus have the motivation to formulate a purpose.

Must every purpose stem from a lack?

Something that is complete becomes inert.

Carl G wrote: Can something which is everything still grow, still create new things?

What would it grow into? Your concept of the Totality is too limited.

In one way it could create new things, but in another way, it already created them, so they are not "new" per se. The Totality includes time. We experience time in a linear fashion, so things can appear new to us. The Totality doesn't experience because it is experience.

Carl G wrote: Could it have a Consciousness?

In its own way, but not in any way that is comparable to human conciousness.

Carl G wrote: A Will?

Causality is its "will" so to speak.

Carl G wrote:Is it possible for a human to ascertain the answers simply by using deduction? I don't think so.

Then you have not built up your deductive powers sufficiently yet. Keep working on it and you will see more.
.

Nick Treklis wrote:The only meaning one's life has is the meaning they give it. So choose your meaning wisely, you only have one shot.

if the only meaning to life is that which is applied while living, then what is left that can be used to determine what is a wise choice of meaning and what is not?

DQ wrote: Only finite things are capable of experiencing lack and thus have the motivation to formulate a purpose.
Carl G: Must every purpose stem from a lack?

DQ also wrote: It is non-dual in nature, which means that it is beyond all dualities - whether it be dualities of reality and illusion, existence and non-existence, or purpose and purposelessness.

Elizabeth said: Something that is complete becomes inert.

I agree (and disagree with David).

To be non-dualistic means to be complete, therefore the universe is dualistic, not non-dualistic, otherwise it would be inert.

Non-duality = thingness, because two opposities have been added together to form one. People thinking in terms of inherent thingness is a huge block to understanding reality.

Non-duality works fine as a concept to signify the interconnectedness of the totality and the causal synergies that occur when opposites balance each other out. But one's idea of reality must be taken further than this, if there are synergies then such synergies must be differentiated by being surrounded by something that is not synergistic, namely imbalanced forces. Non-duality, or oneness, rests inside a cosmic sea of duality, and consists of (mostly) equalised dualistic forces. Admittedly, exactly what is regarded as balanced/synergistic or not-balanced/chaotic is dependant on the observer, one observor may class a certain thing as balanced and another with a different persepctive may not, but regardless of this an observor cannot observe without differentiation, so it is a moot point.

No thing and the totality itself are not 100% balanced, so in reality the concept of non-duality in an absolute sense is a delusion. No thing can be completely balanced or it would be impossible to change, nor can the totality be perfectly balanced so as to be called non-dualistic - if it was then the universe would be without differentiation or causal power.

Nonetheless to perceive the nature of the universe, one should analytically observe both non-duality and duality in unison. Reality is not a non-dualistic totality, it is not a matter of one or the other, but a combination of the two concepts.

Carl G wrote: You say the idea is meaningless, I say it is undiscussible.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Yet, we are discussing it.

Carl G wrote:You say it is contradiction, I say it is unknowable.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The Totality includes all points, so how could it have a point of its own?

Yet, you refer to 'it'.

Carl G wrote:Is it possible for a human to ascertain the answers simply by using deduction? I don't think so.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Then you have not built up your deductive powers sufficiently yet. Keep working on it and you will see more.

what are these 'answers' you have discovered by means of deductive logic?

Elizabeth is loco.

Carl G wrote:

DQ: The idea of the Totality having a purpose is a contradiction in terms and therefore meaningless.

CG: You say the idea is meaningless, I say it is undiscussible. You say it is contradiction, I say it is unknowable.

I think I understand your logic. I'm not sure logic alone can answer the question of purpose or no purpose.

It's a piece of cake to answer these kinds of questions. It's no problem at all.

It is a matter of properly identifying what the Totality is, and what it isn't. Once you are clear about what the Totality is, then these problems solve themselves. People only remain confused because they are not clear in their minds what exactly they trying to reason about.

DQ: Only finite things are capable of experiencing lack and thus have the motivation to formulate a purpose.

CG: Must every purpose stem from a lack? Can something which is everything still grow, still create new things? Could it have a Consciousness? A Will?

Again, if you understand what the Totality is, all these questions will be resolved in a flash. For example, you will understand that the Totality is timeless and unchanging, and therefore beyond the very possibility of having a purpose. Or to take another example, you will understand that there can be nothing outside of the Totality that the Totality could be conscious of. And so on.

Is it possible for a human to ascertain the answers simply by using deduction? I don't think so.

Well, if a person can't exercise his reasoning and solve these basic questions for himself, then he doesn't have much going for him. He might as well give up and go to the beach, or go shoot himself. Resolving these issues via logic is the barest minimum requirement for a person to enter the genius realms.

-

David wrote:

For example, you will understanding that the Totality is timeless and unchanging, and therefore beyond the very possibility of having a purpose.

Okay. But perhaps parts of it can have a purpose. Perhaps a Galaxy can have a purpose. Perhaps Humanity has a purpose.

Or to take another example, you will understand that there can be nothing outside of the Totality that the Totality could be conscious of.

Conscious of itself. Self-conscious.

Well, if a person can't exercise his reasoning and solve these basic questions for himself, then he doesn't have much going for him. He might as well give up and go to the beach, or go shoot himself. Resolving these issues via logic is the barest minimum requirement for a person to enter the genius realms.

Putting all one's eggs in the one basket of logic, at the end of the day, that's what one has, logic. Logic doesn't necessarily lead to knowledge. Definition does not necessarily lead to knowledge, although it may seem logical that it does.

That is to say, deductive reasoning does not necessarily lead to knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality.

David Quinn wrote:It is a matter of properly identifying what the Totality is, and what it isn't. Once you are clear about what the Totality is, then these problems solve themselves. People only remain confused because they are not clear in their minds what exactly they trying to reason about.

While you are obviously correct about all that, I think that when people bring up this meaning of life thing, what they really want to know is, "What is the meaning of my life?" Which is another way of saying, "I'm important, right?"

So philosophical answers will remain unsatisfying. It's not really a philosophical question, it's just dressed up like one.

DHodges wrote:I think that when people bring up this meaning of life thing, what they really want to know is, "What is the meaning of my life?"

Maybe most people, but I actually meant life in general. The reason I brought it up was that I noticed most of the topics sucked lately, so I thought I'd throw in one of the standard questions of philosophy.