Fire Emblem Addict Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Sorry for being "overly active" on the forums but I'm just so happy that I finally have another outlet for my ideas other than my friends at school So this one is about the purpose of life. Obviously, the stock response to the question "what makes a "good" life" is to say "a happy one". However, is a life of sorrow and depression necessarily a bad one and is a happy life necessarily a good one? Well a person who does nothing but use marijuana all day can be considered a "happy" person, but is that life good? And what about people like Newton or Mozart who lived out their lives in depression but are widely idolized today (I'm sure many would agree with me that they would rather be Newton/Mozart than a lifelong pothead)? To achieve a "good" life, how should one balance the importance of legacy (which does not concern the person but is still an important to having a "good" life) and happiness (which concerns only the person). Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Sorry for being "overly active" on the forums but I'm just so happy that I finally have another outlet for my ideas other than my friends at school So this one is about the purpose of life. Obviously, the stock response to the question "what makes a "good" life" is to say "a happy one". However, is a life of sorrow and depression necessarily a bad one and is a happy life necessarily a good one? Life is what you make of it. If you say to yourself everyday, "I have a happy life," and you believe yourself, your life will be happy. But it works two ways: If you are depressed and say to yourself everyday, "I am unfortunate and my life is unbearable," your life will be unpleasant. The key principle with this kind of thing is mind over matter. If you can convince yourself that something is enjoyable, enjoying it is as easy as that. Well a person who does nothing but use marijuana all day can be considered a "happy" person, but is that life good? Have you ever smoked weed? Who's to say that's a bad life? I have a doctor's recommendation and I use cannabis everyday. Every once in a while, especially in the mornings, I feel depressed but more often I think life is beautiful and enjoy every aspect of it. Is my life a good one? And what about people like Newton or Mozart who lived out their lives in depression but are widely idolized today (I'm sure many would agree with me that they would rather be Newton/Mozart than a lifelong pothead)? To achieve a "good" life, how should one balance the importance of legacy (which does not concern the person but is still an important to having a "good" life) and happiness (which concerns only the person). Thoughts? Do you envy that Newton and Mozart lived many years in depression? I am sure that either of them would have traded their talents away in an instant if they could do so to obtain eternal happiness. There is a difference between having a work ethic and having an unhappy life. By society's standards some people are high achievers and some people are low achievers, but these standards change every year and it could be that in a generation everybody will forget the name Isaac Newton. You will never know what your "legacy" will be until you are dead, so why lead yourself down a sorrowful path in the meantime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolDeath Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I think people should do what they want and not fool themselves worrying with this "legacy" deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawman Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I don't think being happy, or rich, or famous, or anything like that should be the goal of life. Just seems too worldly and materialistic...or selfish even. Or not even doing what you want or following your dreams or being successful. I think those types of things are so unimportant, too bad they are valued so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Emblem Addict Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) Very good points so far guys, but I always felt that I should do more during my short time on Earth than just to fertilize the ground when I die. And as for the marijuana comment, I'm not condemning it, I'm simply to point out that sometimes a happy life isn't an intellectually satisfying one. Maybe its just me but I think I that unhappiness for the sake of making a positive difference on the world is a good trade off. As for Newton or Mozart, I don't think they would give up what they had contributed once they realize just how much they helped propel the human species as a whole forward. Mozart's beautiful music had touched the hearts of millions and Newton's contributions to science shed light on some of the darkest secrets of the cosmos. If I had to make a choice, between a life of happiness without making any positive contributions or making the world better at the price of a life of sorrow, I would, without a moment's hesitation, choose the latter. Keep sharing your thoughts guys! EDIT: typos and responding to Strawman's comment "I don't think being happy, or rich, or famous, or anything like that should be the goal of life. Just seems too worldly and materialistic...or selfish even. Or not even doing what you want or following your dreams or being successful. I think those types of things are so unimportant, too bad they are valued so much." Could you please share what the goal of life should be in your opinion? Edited April 19, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 There is no meaning to life. People define their own individual purpose. For example, a friend explained to me that s/he (:P) is religious because it personally helps him/her have a purpose. I believe my purpose is in physics, and I will take that as far as I possibly can, which I hope is successful, obviously. As for happiness, that is something I'll never achieve. Too many loved ones now dead, too many shortcomings of humanity, and not enough years I'd like to live. I disagree with the quote "A wise man lives as much as he needs to, not as much as he can," something I read randomly in Enlgish (so if someone can direct to who said it that would be awesome). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawman Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Well...I really don't know a way to put this that isn't going to sound...dumb...in a way, but in the most basic sense I'd have to say following Jesus/the bible. Not the Church, the Bible; they are very different at times. And thats just to me personally. Which, if I had to sum it up, would have to be living differently than the rest of the world, and not being controlled, I guess, by worldly, societal, cultural ideas, etc. I mean I guess it would kind of be like trying to change the world so that its basically what people think of as heaven but on Earth for the benfit of all of mankind. And I don't really mean this as this should be everyone's true meaning in life, but like...what does any of that(success, fame, wealth, happiness, etc) really get you? It just seems like people always see the true meaning of life as revolving around themselves. Why can't the true meaning of life revolve around others, or maybe the entire world? I don't know, that was probably really dumb, but its hard to express what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Sorry for being "overly active" on the forums but I'm just so happy that I finally have another outlet for my ideas other than my friends at school So this one is about the purpose of life. Obviously, the stock response to the question "what makes a "good" life" is to say "a happy one". However, is a life of sorrow and depression necessarily a bad one and is a happy life necessarily a good one? Well a person who does nothing but use marijuana all day can be considered a "happy" person, but is that life good? And what about people like Newton or Mozart who lived out their lives in depression but are widely idolized today (I'm sure many would agree with me that they would rather be Newton/Mozart than a lifelong pothead)? To achieve a "good" life, how should one balance the importance of legacy (which does not concern the person but is still an important to having a "good" life) and happiness (which concerns only the person). Thoughts? I believe that when we refer to a happy life as being good, we generally envision qualities that are both outwardly and inwardly beneficient to society. We think of someone who has settled down and has a family and loved ones, but also someone that contributes to his/her community. A cutpurse may be inwardly happy, and may make his family happy when he comes home day after day with stolen money, but most would likely say he is not leading a good life. Of course, does this mean that objectively, the meaning of life is to experience a happy life? No. Of course not. The only purpose of life is to live. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no innate qualities you have to live up to, there are no objectives to meet. We as a people engineer goals so that as a society we made advance and live comfortably, but this is of course a subjective approach. What do I think that life should personally be about? The perfect ending to my life will have come if I died content, having lived a long and entertaining life, leaving behind family and friends that remember me fondly and try to do the same with their lives. Well...I really don't know a way to put this that isn't going to sound...dumb...in a way, but in the most basic sense I'd have to say following Jesus/the bible. Not the Church, the Bible; they are very different at times. And thats just to me personally. Which, if I had to sum it up, would have to be living differently than the rest of the world, and not being controlled, I guess, by worldly, societal, cultural ideas, etc. I mean I guess it would kind of be like trying to change the world so that its basically what people think of as heaven but on Earth for the benfit of all of mankind. You follow the Bible? All of it? Or do you find areas of the Bible agreeable, and adapt them to fit your own personal lifestyle? And I don't really mean this as this should be everyone's true meaning in life, but like...what does any of that(success, fame, wealth, happiness, etc) really get you? It just seems like people always see the true meaning of life as revolving around themselves. Why can't the true meaning of life revolve around others, or maybe the entire world? Because people are built to be selfish, at least in some fashion. There's no such thing as a true altruist, being singular beings with singular existences and viewpoints, we obviously understand that we are the most important things; there are outlying events in which an individual will do something that may cause them harm immediately or in the long run, but this is meant as being agreeable to us. Sure, we help people. I occasionally give money to someone, so long as they ask. But I won't give them my car. I won't give them my house. No one really would. Because those things are important to them, regardless of how important they are to the other person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 There is no meaning to life. People define their own individual purpose. This. Ultimately, most people will live their lives trying some way to be happy (because happiness is somewhat quantifiable, and is basically the one emotion we cannot possibly dislike, by definition), but some people will more or less just be unable to be happy, for one reason or another. Honestly, I don't think one is objectively "better" than the other, but I am going to go out on a limb and predict that most people who fundamentally do not enjoy life would most definitely like to be able to enjoy it. I could be wrong though, and if anyone actually has first hand experience with depression or just general unhappiness with living/existing by all means I defer to you. Anyway, personally I haven't really given myself a "purpose" of any sort. I have plans, things I want to do, etc, but I don't need them to happen. In general I'm content to just drift around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Emblem Addict Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) "The purpose of life is to live" Yes, this is true and your statement that the purpose of life is subjective for the most part. However, one must also factor in the Darwinian response to this question, which is that the purpose of life is to reproduce and ensure the survival of our genes. What fascinates me about this Darwinian model is that it combines a subjective purpose of life (pleasure and hence happiness) with an objective purpose of live (reproduction). Basically the theory states that the number one priority of any living being is to survive and pass on his/her/its genes (the exact rationale for this might take quite a while to explain, so I recommend the book The Selfish Gene). To encourage us to do this, our brain makes us feel good (through dopamine) whenever we engage in an activity that increases our chance of survival and reproduction (e.g. sex, eating, etc.) and makes us feel uncomfortable (i.e. pain) when we things that decrease our chances of reproduction (e.g. putting our hands in a fire). This model allows both the subjective, Epicurean purpose of living (for happiness and pleasure) and the objective purpose for living (reproduction). Therefore, according to this theory, to be happy is to fulfill an objective purpose in life. Also, I believe that everyone has a purpose of some sort in life. Perhaps the best way of trying to discover it is by asking oneself the question "If I was offered the option of dying a quick and relatively painless death right here and now, would I take it?" If the answer is "no", then one must ask oneself the question "why not?" I highly doubt that anyone living will respond with an "yes" simply due to the fact that there are many ways to commit suicide without much pain. Thoughts guys? EDIT: typos Edited April 19, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolDeath Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I think you're kind of over-complicating this a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) Yes, this is true and your statement that the purpose of life is subjective for the most part. However, one must also factor in the Darwinian response to this question, which is that the purpose of life is to reproduce and ensure the survival of our genes. Except that isn't a purpose unless people make it a purpose. There is no conscious force driving this reproduction, and there is no overall mastermind behind it. Science does not claim any purpose to anything, it simply explains what exists and what occurs. What fascinates me about this Darwinian model is that it combines a subjective purpose of life (pleasure and hence happiness) with an objective purpose of live (reproduction). Basically the theory states that the number one priority of any living being is to survive and pass on his/her/its genes (the exact rationale for this might take quite a while to explain, so I recommend the book The Selfish Gene). To encourage us to do this, our brain makes us feel good (through dopamine) whenever we engage in an activity that increases our chance of survival and reproduction (e.g. sex, eating, etc.) and makes us feel uncomfortable (i.e. pain) when we things that decrease our chances of reproduction (e.g. putting our hands in a fire). This model allows both the subjective, Epicurean purpose of living (for happiness and pleasure) and the objective purpose for living (reproduction). Therefore, according to this theory, to be happy is to fulfill an objective purpose in life. But that isn't an objective purpose. Purposes, pretty much by nature, are subjective. There is no law of nature that states "the purpose of life is to reproduce", just as purposes do not physically exist. So basically, this: I think you're kind of over-complicating this a bit. The irony. Edited April 19, 2011 by ZXValaRevan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Emblem Addict Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) Except that isn't a purpose unless people make it a purpose. There is no conscious force driving this reproduction, and there is no overall mastermind behind it. Science does not claim any purpose to anything, it simply explains what exists and what occurs. But that isn't an objective purpose. Purposes, pretty much by nature, are subjective. There is no law of nature that states "the purpose of life is to reproduce", just as purposes do not physically exist. So basically, this: The irony. Thank you for the response. However, your statement only holds true if the Existential philosophy of "existence precedes essence" is true. What this basically means is that humans do not possess an identity or serve a specific function when born and hence we choose our own identity. The theory of the selfish gene challenges this assertion by states that we are indeed here for a reason, we are "created" by our genes so that they may be passed on. Basically the theory hypothesizes that way back in the day of the primordial soup, a self-replicating molecule that is not capable of making perfect replicas of itself was "born" (this is the prevalent scientific view as to the origin of evolution on Earth). It did this by influencing the atoms within said "soup" to bond into a molecule just like the "parent" molecule. However, this process is not perfect (and it cannot be perfect for evolution to occur), and different "breeds" of said molecule soon emerges, each breed with slightly different ways in which it replicates itself. Due to the fact that the atoms within this soup are finite, less and less molecules are able to be formed. Therefore, only certain breeds (the ones that are able to reproduce faster or the ones that are able to break apart other molecules to reproduce) are able to reproduce.Hence, there forms this kind of competition between the molecules (of course, it must be made clear that molecules are not sentient beings, they do not destroy other molecules because they consciously want to reproduce, it's just that only the ones that are able to do so gets to reproduce and hence pass on those characteristics), and as the competition gets more fierce, the mechanisms by the molecules get more elaborate and complex. For example, these molecules (now far more elaborate than they were originally due to competition) may form primitive defense mechanisms to prevent itself from being "broken apart" by other molecules. These defenses may end of involving the use of smaller molecules to "protect" the replicating molecule from being broken. Basically, the theory hypothesizes that we, humans, are an example of such a vessel. The ancient "replicating" molecule is simply our DNA and our genes and we are their "survival machines" (the same holds true for all living things). Therefore, if we assume this to be true (which we cannot be sure it is), our "essence" preceded our existence, which would mean that an objective purpose indeed exists. However, due to the fact that very few people (myself included ) actually think objectively about most things, there is still the subjective side of life, which I tried to address with my last post about the Darwinian view of life. Thoughts? I know that's a lot of info to digest and I also realize that compared to Dawkins, I did a very poor job of explaining the theory (please read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins for a better explanation). Therefore, please feel free to ask me to elaborate on any point. Or, if you already understand the theory, please feel free to provide a response and to keep the discussion going. EDIT: typos EDIT: as for over-complication, I personally do not think it's possible to over-complicate the question that had perplexed even the likes of Plato, Kierkegaard, and Epicurus. Edited April 20, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Thank you for the response. However, your statement only holds true if the Existential philosophy of "existence precedes essence" is true. What this basically means is that humans do not possess an identity or serve a specific function when born and hence we choose our own identity. The theory of the selfish gene challenges this assertion by states that we are indeed here for a reason, we are "created" by our genes so that they may be passed on. Basically the theory hypothesizes that way back in the day of the primordial soup, a self-replicating molecule that is not capable of making perfect replicas of itself was "born" (this is the prevalent scientific view as to the origin of evolution on Earth). It did this by influencing the atoms within said "soup" to bond into a molecule just like the "parent" molecule. However, this process is not perfect (and it cannot be perfect for evolution to occur), and different "breeds" of said molecule soon emerges, each breed with slightly different ways in which it replicates itself. Due to the fact that the atoms within this soup are finite, less and less molecules are able to be formed. Therefore, only certain breeds (the ones that are able to reproduce faster or the ones that are able to break apart other molecules to reproduce) are able to reproduce.Hence, there forms this kind of competition between the molecules (of course, it must be made clear that molecules are not sentient beings, they do not destroy other molecules because they consciously want to reproduce, it's just that only the ones that are able to do so gets to reproduce and hence pass on those characteristics), and as the competition gets more fierce, the mechanisms by the molecules get more elaborate and complex. For example, these molecules (now far more elaborate than they were originally due to competition) may form primitive defense mechanisms to prevent itself from being "broken apart" by other molecules. These defenses may end of involving the use of smaller molecules to "protect" the replicating molecule from being broken. Basically, the theory hypothesizes that we, humans, are an example of such a vessel. The ancient "replicating" molecule is simply our DNA and our genes and we are their "survival machines" (the same holds true for all living things). Therefore, if we assume this to be true (which we cannot be sure it is), our "essence" preceded our existence, which would mean that an objective purpose indeed exists. However, due to the fact that very few people (myself included ) actually think objectively about most things, there is still the subjective side of life, which I tried to address with my last post about the Darwinian view of life. Thoughts? I know that's a lot of info to digest and I also realize that compared to Dawkins, I did a very poor job of explaining the theory (please read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins for a better explanation). Therefore, please feel free to ask me to elaborate on any point. Or, if you already understand the theory, please feel free to provide a response and to keep the discussion going. EDIT: typos EDIT: as for over-complication, I personally do not think it's possible to over-complicate the question that had perplexed even the likes of Plato, Kierkegaard, and Epicurus. I understand the theory and the mechanics of evolution. All I'm saying is that that isn't an objective purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Emblem Addict Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) "All I'm saying is that that isn't an objective purpose." And here is the exact point that I'm disagreeing with. Although exact definitions of objectivity vary from source to source, the commonly accepted one is that an objective purpose is one that is not influenced by personal feelings, but instead based on facts. Although in the purpose of life may be subjective to some, an objective purpose does exist (since the theory of evolution, by its very nature, is objective). Perhaps you could give an explanation as to why the theory and mechanics of evolution (and hence the purpose of life that the theory implies) are not objective? EDIT: typos again, really need to start proofreading Edited April 20, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) Your problem is you're attributing purpose to evolution. Evolution doesn't "act" with intent. It doesn't act at all. Evolution doesn't exist--we say things evolve. If there is a grove of trees, and gales rip out every tree but one, that tree is allowed to continue to live--we would call this evolution, in sense, because for some reason, it survived, and it continues on. Evolution is often seen as the adaptation of a species--no, it's the survival. The end-point of evolution is often confused for the entire-point. Further, evolution (as a way of describing the phenomena of not being dead) cannot have purpose. It isn't anything more than a concept. We, as self-aware beings, say it is purposeful. Evolution just happens--there's no "reason." Just occurance, which we happen to observe and say means something. "Life" does not have purpose. The attempt to not die, and adaptations that come with, are not "purposeful." We as observers see them as such. If you were to actually objectively talk about evolution, it would be functional. The stomach is not purposefully digesting food. It functionally does--you just so happen to enjoy it, by some means. Edited April 20, 2011 by Celice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shroudening Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 The meaning in life, in my humble opinion, is whatever you want to make of it. Evidence based or not, opinions are opinions. Darwin may have revolutionized evolution as fact, but the idea that that's all there is to life lacks a solid reasoning, as then all we are doing is trying to prevent our own extinction. This may very well be true, but then you also have to consider morality as well because "meaning" is not the objective of science. There are two questions that the meaning of life brings up. What is the meaning of life as an individual, and as a whole. As an individual, you have the right to believe whatever you want that thoroughly satisfies you. Otherwise, I think trying to define "meaning" is pointless, unless you want to associate it with a religion or God. I am ready for the nitpicking/beating that I often get when debating.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) You can create meaning outside of religion, or God, or any other religious icon. The accepting of religion or God is in itself a self-accepted meaning. It's not invested in you or given--it's something the person accepts. That meaning, even if attached to an outside source, is still one which occurs only because someone chooses, creates, that meaning. Edited April 20, 2011 by Celice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Emblem Addict Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) "Evolution is often seen as the adaptation of a species--no, it's the survival. The end-point of evolution is often confused for the entire-point." Just to sort out a technicality, survival does not simply imply evolution. Just because I managed to survive a catastrophe doesn't mean I evolved. There must be a change in the phenotype (the result of the expression of genes) for it to be considered evolution. Therefore, a tree not dying, in and of itself, would not be considered evolution. And I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence. "Evolution doesn't exist--we say things evolve" Well there are observations of evolution occurring amongst bacteria (since most larger lifeforms take to long to reproduce to be effectively observed, however, there has been an experiment regarding artificial selection of foxes), so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. "Further, evolution (as a way of describing the phenomena of not being dead) cannot have purpose. It isn't anything more than a concept. We, as self-aware beings, say it is purposeful. Evolution just happens--there's no "reason." Just occurance, which we happen to observe and say means something." I agree 100% ""Life" does not have purpose. The attempt to not die, and adaptations that come with, are not "purposeful." We as observers see them as such. If you were to actually objectively talk about evolution, it would be functional. The stomach is not purposefully digesting food. It functionally does--you just so happen to enjoy it, by some means." True as well, it would be ludicrous (as you have pointed out) to say that the purpose of life is to "not die". However, I think the answer to the question lies in the question, "why does one not want to die" . And yes you are absolutely correct in that evolution is "functional" and "purposeless" , however, I was never attempting to find the purpose in evolution, simply using the theory as a means of finding the purpose of life. I don't understand what you mean with the stomach statement, if you could please elaborate. "As an individual, you have the right to believe whatever you want that thoroughly satisfies you. Otherwise, I think trying to define "meaning" is pointless, unless you want to associate it with a religion or God." Very true, but the question that must be asked is why does something satisfies a person (i.e. eating and sleeping are satisfying because they help in reducing the likelihood of dying). What was originally intended as a friendly discussion is quickly turning into a scholastic debate (I've had bad experiences with them in the past because the ones at my school always end up involving copious amounts of ad hominem attacks) . But that's ok, if debates are the best ways to share ideas then debate it is. EDIT: bolded quotations so its easier on the eyes and changed some wording Edited April 20, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 The purpose of life is to pursue knowledge until we know enough to give a better guess or answer to the question! prablem salved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 "All I'm saying is that that isn't an objective purpose." And here is the exact point that I'm disagreeing with. Although exact definitions of objectivity vary from source to source, the commonly accepted one is that an objective purpose is one that is not influenced by personal feelings, but instead based on facts. Although in the purpose of life may be subjective to some, an objective purpose does exist (since the theory of evolution, by its very nature, is objective). Perhaps you could give an explanation as to why the theory and mechanics of evolution (and hence the purpose of life that the theory implies) are not objective? EDIT: typos again, really need to start proofreading This is sort of hard to explain (though Celice did a pretty good job). Evelution is based on facts. I know this. The theory and mechanics of evolution are objective. However, they in no way imply a purpose to life. Evolution doesn't think, it simply occurs. It is not an entity at all, it's not a "thing", it is a process. It has no purpose that is evident. Basically, I'm saying that while I see how you might extrapolate that there is a purpose to life implied by evolution, there, in all actuallity is no objective purpose applied by it. A purpose is subjective by its very nature, pretty much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Emblem Addict Posted April 21, 2011 Author Share Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) "Evolution doesn't think, it simply occurs. It is not an entity at all, it's not a "thing", it is a process. It has no purpose that is evident." Once again, I completely agree. "However, they in no way imply a purpose to life." Perhaps a bit of rephrasing on my part is necessary. I was not using the definition of the theory of evolution (i.e. that changes occur in the phenotype over time) as a source of purpose in life. I am using a more specialized theory (that of the selfish gene, which is a sub-theory of evolution if you will) to make the point that humans are not here simply because circumstances allow them to be. They are here to survive a specific function, that of propagating our genes. "A purpose is subjective by its very nature, pretty much." I disagree with this point. What you say is true only for objects that are not designed for a particular purpose (such as when asking for the purpose of a rock, for example). However, one must agree that the purpose of objects that are created for a particular purpose (hammers or forks for example) are very much objective. The argument that I tried to make in my Selfish Gene post is that humans indeed fall into the second category ("created" by our genes to ensure their survival) and hence serve an objective purpose. "The purpose of life is to pursue knowledge until we know enough to give a better guess or answer to the question!" Why the assumption that we do not know enough already to answer this question? Regardless of the amount of knowledge that one possesses, a question such as this will always require deep contemplation. I'm loving this discussion so far! Incredibly intellectually stimulating EDIT: responding to lehoua's post (thankfully no typo edits this time around ) EDIT: forgot to bold quotes again Edited April 21, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) "However, they in no way imply a purpose to life." Perhaps a bit of rephrasing on my part is necessary. I was not using the definition of the theory of evolution (i.e. that changes occur in the phenotype over time) as a source of purpose in life. I am using a more specialized theory (that of the selfish gene, which is a sub-theory of evolution if you will) to make the point that humans are not here simply because circumstances allow them to be. They are here to survive a specific function, that of propagating our genes. I disagree with this point. What you say is true only for objects that are not designed for a particular purpose (such as when asking for the purpose of a rock, for example). However, one must agree that the purpose of objects that are created for a particular purpose (hammers or forks for example) are very much objective. The argument that I tried to make in my Selfish Gene post is that humans indeed fall into the second category ("created" by our genes to ensure their survival) and hence serve an objective purpose. Read this from the introduction of The Selfish Gene: "Or does natural selection, as I urge instead here, choose between genes? In this case, we should not be surprised to find individual organisms behaving altruistically ‘for the good of the genes’, for example by feeding and protecting kin who are likely to share copies of the same genes. Such kin altruism is only one way in which gene selfishness can translate itself into individual altruism. This book explains how it works, together with reciprocation, Darwinian theory's other main generator of altruism." The idea of an "objective" purpose seems silly. The question "do animals live for the good of their species," to "do genes behave for the good of the genes," does not support the possibility that we are here for our genes. That our purpose is in our genes. Our purpose is defined by us individually. Unless you're using purpose as a synonym for tool, I can't see anything having an "objective" purpose. Edited April 21, 2011 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Emblem Addict Posted April 21, 2011 Author Share Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) Read this from the introduction of The Selfish Gene: "Or does natural selection, as I urge instead here, choose between genes? In this case, we should not be surprised to find individual organisms behaving altruistically 'for the good of the genes', for example by feeding and protecting kin who are likely to share copies of the same genes. Such kin altruism is only one way in which gene selfishness can translate itself into individual altruism. This book explains how it works, together with reciprocation, Darwinian theory's other main generator of altruism." The idea of an "objective" purpose seems silly. The question "do animals live for the good of their species," to "do genes behave for the good of the genes," does not support the possibility that we are here for our genes. That our purpose is in our genes. Our purpose is defined by us individually. Unless your using purpose as a synonym for tool, I can't see anything having an "objective" purpose. That's exactly what I'm saying, we are survival "tools" built by our genes and therefore serve an objective purpose. This does not mean, however, that everyone has to follow it. Like many others have said, everyone is free to choose their purpose in life as they please. However, I'm simply pointing out that an objective purpose does exist. EDIT: It fills me with joy to find something else who appreciates the works of Richard Dawkins Edited April 21, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 That's exactly what I'm saying, we are survival "tools" built by our genes and therefore serve an objective purpose. This does not mean, however, that everyone has to follow it. Like many others have said, everyone is free to choose their purpose in life as they please. However, I'm simply pointing out that an objective purpose does exist. EDIT: It fills me with joy to find someone else who appreciates the works of Richard Dawkins Your topic title is incredibly misleading, in that case. You and I are probably not the only ones that appreciate Dawkins, haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.