Let’s see if we can come up with some general statements that most people would agree to.
1. The universe et.al exists.
2. Life is part of that universe.
3. Man is part of that universe.
4. Man is a sentient life form.
5. As other forms of life, man has certain characteristics.
6. One of man’s characteristics is that he is a reasoning life form.
7. Another of man’s characteristics is that he is a social animal and interacting with other people is a necessary part of his existence.
8.
Can we get anything out of these statements? A necessary part of a fundamental set of statements is that they are complete and consistent. That is, can we generate all that we want from them and are none of them contradictory. These are probably not but let’s work with them for a while. — George Fisher
But to nearly anyone, if you were to ask them 'what is the meaning of life?', I think they would find it very hard to understand and respond, as their meaning was simply a given. — Wayfarer
I think these kinds of questions have really only been meaningful since maybe the mid-19th century. It would not have occured to anyone, or hardly anyone, that this was a question before that time. Subjects understood themselves in a social role, demarcated by their social class and their religion. Those background factors were assumed by everyone to be true - not only in the Christian West, but in other cultures also. The meaning of life was understood in those terms, and it was simply given, there was hardly the conceptual space to contemplate it. Of course, that may not be true of some exceptional individuals - Giordano Bruno comes to mind, but then his questioning of the accepted 'meta-narrative' so upset the establishment that he was burned at the stake. But to nearly anyone, if you were to ask them 'what is the meaning of life?', I think they would find it very hard to understand and respond, as their meaning was simply a given. They would not know what you were on about.
It's soundly reasonable to conclude that there is no "reason for the existence of mankind" but mankind's reasons.Is there some reason for the existence of mankind? — George Fisher
Likewise, it's also soundly reasonable to conclude that there is no reason for "your existence" but your reasons.Is there a reason for my existence?
All of the extant evidence, contrary to the anxieties of our fragile self-esteem, strongly suggests we are merely different from other natural beings, not "more special" than any them.Aren’t we more special than that?
Your question is premised on an pathetic fallacy, George. "Evolution" is a blind process biologically perpetuated by the "continuation of the species".Why would evolution produce a thinking being if there was no purpose in it other than continuation of the species?
H. sapiens were merely that for about 1.8 million years and they're still apes, just a bit more clever for the last two hundred millenia.Could we not have been as successful in the world as a very clever ape?
If the "ability to reason" were indispensible to the "ability to adapt and thrive", then living things could not have ever evolved. We – our species – would not exist. I assume by "in a critical way" you are referring to culture: no doubt cultural developments – human competence at reasoning – are accumulated artifacts of (varied degrees of) human aptitude for reasoning, which emerged only very recently in human evolution, and possibly as a mere exaptation or spandrel.Does our ability to reason contribute to our ability to adapt and thrive on the world in a critical way?
I'd really appreciate some compelling evidence supporting the proposition that h. sapiens are an "exception" or any more improbable on "the evolutionary path of life" than any other multicellular species. We're not, and that's a brute fact.If we are an exception to the evolutionary path of life, why should we be?
I'd really appreciate some compelling evidence supporting the proposition that h. sapiens are an "exception" or any more improbable on "the evolutionary path of life" than any other multicellular species. We're not, and that's a brute fact.
The old Greek proverb: "count no man happy until he has died," is incoherent in the modern context. Happiness and the good life are disconnected from the original idea of "the Good Life." That is, the term "Good Life," as employed by Saint Augustine wasn't about "being happy and finding meaning," but rather about living the (morally) good life. Meaning and purpose are assumed in "the Good." I mean, it's even hard to make the distinction with our current lexicon. — Count Timothy von Icarus
And I think it does bring up some decent questions. First, why wasn't this solution hit on earlier? It is very effective. — Count Timothy von Icarus
But you might agree that there are more and less meaningful ways to live. And that for many, the lack or loss of meaning is a genuine source of grief. — Wayfarer
These are two thinkers out of many others who do not find "naturalism inimical" to (philosophical) Buddhism and its "concerns" as you do — 180 Proof
If you haven't read him yet, you might find interesting the writings of the naturalist philosopher of mind Owen Flanagan who has studied and appreciates Buddhist meditative practices. — 180 Proof
{See https://inquiringmind.com/article/3102_20_bodhi-facing-the-great-divide/ for a ‘modern traditionalist analysis) — Wayfarer
The weaknesses of Classical Buddhism are typical of other forms of traditional religion. These include a tendency toward complacency, a suspicion of modernity, the identification of cultural forms with essence, and a disposition to doctrinal rigidity. At the popular level, Classical Buddhism often shelves the attitude of critical inquiry that the Buddha himself encouraged in favor of devotional fervor and unquestioning adherence to hallowed doctrinal formulas.
It's soundly reasonable to conclude that there is no "reason for the existence of mankind" but mankind's reasons.
Is there a reason for my existence?
Likewise, it's also soundly reasonable to conclude that there is no reason for "your existence" but your reasons. — 180 Proof
I don't know about "soundly" but, if we have an external "reason" then it may have been "programed" into us and take the form of our own "reasons".How could it be "soundly reasonable" that the reason for your existence is your reasons? — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't know about "soundly" but, if we have an external "reason" then it may have been "programed" into us and take the form of our own "reasons". — mentos987
Subjectively they would be your own. From the viewpoint of fellow humans, they would be your own. — mentos987
If the reasons are external, and preprogrammed, it would be incorrect to call them "one's own" reasons. I think that the "reasons" in the form in which they are attributed to the individual, would be distinctly different from the "reasons" which were prior to the individual, so we could not say that these are "the same reasons" in a different form. They would be distinctly different reasons. And if they are by any means "the same reasons", then we cannot attribute them to the individual.
Interesting that he converted to Catholicism from having been a convinced Marxist.
The meaning of life can be looked at from several different levels. On the one end there is the selfish view of how it is useful to us. Am I happy, am I successful, do I have a lot of friends, etc.? On the other end it is tied with purpose and causality. Not just my life but what about life in general or human life. Is there a reason why I am, or anyone is. — George Fisher
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.