That is the issue. How can transitory pleasure be a purpose if it is without meaning and doesn't stay consistent? — intrapersona

Purposes in that sense of the term are simply overarching goals that one has in mind. As with everything else, that is going to ultimately obtain, if it does, simply because that's how that individual's brain happens to work. So that's how that could be one's purpose even in the absence of meaning for that pleasure, and even though that pleasure doesn't remain unchanged.

At that, it doesn't seem to be the case that anyone's brain works so that x would be one's purpose but so that one doesn't also assign meaning to x.

However, re "doesn't remain unchanged," that's certainly the case, as a fortiori, nothing remains unchanged over time.

It is in accordance with what I said in my OP about how animals have no purpose in life other than to survive and not die because they are afraid to die. — intrapersona

Purposes are necessarily present to consciousness. They do not exist otherwise. So both human and non-human animals only have purposes insofar as those are explicitly present to consciousness. That's not to deny that a lot of behavioral tendencies are evolutionarily selected for because they make survival until the possibility of procreation more likely--and that's simply because contrary tendencies are not as likely to be genetically passed on, because the potential parent creatures are less likely to survive to procreate when those characteristics obtain, but it would be misconceived to identify that fact with a "purpose."

Fear likewise only obtains when it's present to consciousness.

It's quite simple, an absence of anything, everything. There are no bananas or thingamajig, it's quite simple. In fact it couldn't be simpler.
— Punshhh

Don't you see though that they are one and the same thing? You don't KNOW what an absence of anything is because you can't ever experience it. It is simple because you just aren't looking at it deeply enough.

Yes, I know this distinction, I know that we as limited beings can't conceive of the reality of no existence. But we are discussing intellectualisation of the life we find ourselves in. So just as we can come up with the idea of 1+1 =2, or infinity, we can come up with the idea of nonexistence.

I bring it up though, because it might well be the case following death, so it is potentially an option for action in life, just take an overdose and you're there, in a state of absolute nonexistence, the purpose is then clear, there is none.

I have given purpose a lot of thought and have concluded that the answer is for humanity to secure its long term survival with a healthy social culture, which manages the planetary resources sustainably and cares for and maintains the biosphere. Is that not a worthy purpose?
— Punshhh

That purpose is the same as I stated in my OP, just to keep surviving and not die like all other animals. That is not a purpose, that is an instinct.

This is a conflation between instinct and intellectual strategic action. Also you have ignored my classification of purposes. It's almost as though you are not interested in discussing purpose.

Going back to instinct, all cellular life forms(to generalise) have agency, if they have agency they are at liberty to persue purposes, they have purpose. Even if that purpose is dictated by the processes of instinct. Higher animals like humans and primates etc, have the ability to develop individual and group strategies, so they have a wider scope of purposes within their capacity. But they are still within the first category of purposes.

So are you going now to appeal to the second category of purposes, those in reference to any agency, or process resulting in the existence of this whole world we find ourselves in? Because this seems to be what you are looking towards in the OP.

You're misunderstanding if you think I have said that life is all positive, just a bed of roses with no thorns. Living fully, though, is not a matter of merely coping. Whether you see life as predominately good or bad is always up to you and is a function of your thinking; there is no objective measure even of what life is, let alone of what it is worth.

This is correct, nothing does resolve the situation. You are stuck here until you're not. You will run into harm, you will create your own harm, you will find survival within your culture, you will experience boredom unless you create some sort of entertainment situation.

Yes I agree with your assessment, but this does not take away our (limited I know) freedom for a bit of autonomy, freedom in action, freedom to create something as we please. Not to mention, a choice to help others.

I know it's not much to look forward to in the greater scheme of things. But it really doesn't matter what we think, this is our lot, right now, we have a choice to be constructive, creative and help move the race along, rather than in the direction of more suffering, or towards oblivion. Not to mention, the gift of a mind with the ability to dream, to imagine.

there is no objective measure even of what life is, let alone of what it is worth

Quite, we might naively think we have little worth, but this is not established, it can only be a conceit at best. A human life might have great importance, purpose and meaning, but we just don't know anything of this subtle complexity. Surely it is our duty to observe a reverence for what we have been gifted in the wonder of what it might represent beyond our narrow little window on its beauty and reality.

We might be in class 1 at kindergarten, perhaps we should stop throwing our rattle out of the pram now, it really is time we were nappy trained.

I am not talking about the meaning of life here but a purpose that sustains one from avoiding inevitable death — intrapersona

Can you explain the difference for me? It certainly seems that one sustains oneself with the purpose to avoid death, and that death is inevitable, yet you seem to want another purpose for sustaining life. Well I offer the purpose of overcoming one's need to sustain oneself, one's need for the the personal continuation that then requires in turn a purpose.

Death is inevitable for physical beings, but it has no significance except to that which sustains itself. Self has no purpose, it is unnecessary and harmful to life. So life's purpose is to end self before death ends life.

The very nature of a "good life" entails a purpose. If you don't think it does... THEN LIST WHY NOT! — intrapersona

People live good lives regardless of whether they live for something or nothing. A good life doesn't suddenly arise from having something to live for. Nor would the lack of something to live for imply a bad life.

Then obviously you didn't read my OP — intrapersona

I'm beginning to notice a pattern here.

I live for mostly hedonistic reasons. Do you want a list, or...?

It's irrational to dismiss that just because it is temporary. That it is temporary is inconsequential. For me, at least. — Sapientia

There are some fleeting moments of joy and beauty that I can capture but it is foolish to live FOR those moments exclusively because they are transitory and fleeting, nor do they actually give any more purpose to one's life, it just makes life more "exciting". — intrapersona

Yes, I did read your OP, and I didn't think much of it, to be honest. Hence my short reply.

I didn't regurgitate what you said word for word, but I don't think that it's too far off. But perhaps I misunderstood.

I don't live exclusively for those moments, like I said, so that criticism doesn't apply to me. How many people do? They might say that they live for those moments when asked what they live for, but I think that people just tend to mention the highlights. Whereas, if they gave it enough thought, they would realise that the "whole package" - highlights included - very much matters. You could scrap some stuff, but just having the highlights would seem to be lacking something valuable and important.

I think the fact that such moments are temporary (or, in your words, transitory and fleeting) doesn't really come into it - except as one of the reasons that they're actually worthwhile.

And I think you're wrong when you say that they don't give any more purpose to one's life, but just make life more "exciting". They can do, and actually do in some cases, and you can lose the scare quotes from around the word "exciting".

And your not wanting to die right now is the same as saying you don't want to die. — intrapersona

The last part of the former is usually implicit when people say the latter. So, in that sense, yes. But I was emphasising it to imply that that can change at some point in the future, and endure over a period of time.

Because in the future it is very likely that you will not want to die then either. — intrapersona

You don't know that, and you're not qualified to make that judgement. But my point was just that it's possible. It had nothing to do with probability.

Like the procrastinator who keeps putting of cleaning his room by saying "I will clean my room, just not now". It is a psychological coping mechanism, be aware of it! — intrapersona

I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

I don't feel like saying much else about your OP. I disagree with the gist of it, and I think your comparison of happiness with your "pinky toe" is rather silly, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

People live good lives regardless of whether they live for something or nothing. A good life doesn't suddenly arise from having something to live for. Nor would the lack of something to live for imply a bad life. — jkop

A good life doesn't just randomly arise out of nothingness for no reason. There are things that you can do to have a better chance of obtaining a good life. There are some basic fundamental things, like making sure you have sufficient shelter, food, water, and warmth when it is cold. These minimal things are, for almost everyone, a perquisite to living a good life. Whereas having nothing to live for is very unlikely to lead to a good life. I don't believe that you'll even be able to provide any realistic examples of someone with nothing to live for who is coincidentally living a good life. More likely that they just don't realise what they're living for, and what they're living for is most likely what makes their life a good life.

Are you sure of that? How do you know you weren't an mystical energy being who at the time of transference had all of it's memories temporarily disabled.

My point is that you can't know that for certain. I am so sick of foolish people inferring concrete absolutes about states they know NOTHING of, your as bad as a christian ffs. You don't KNOW what it was like before death, therefor don't say it was nothing... all you can say about it is that you don't know and you don't remember, but it could be something and it could be nothing. — intrapersona

And here we have another "philosopher" who doesn't bother educating themselves in modern science, or more specifically, modern neurology and psychology - who doesn't bother integrating knowledge from all areas of investigation in to a consistent whole and who thinks that unfalsifiable theories are just as powerful as falsifiable ones.

We have scientific evidence that when a certain area of the brain is damaged, we lose the ability to speak, or to remember faces, etc. You seem to think that when the whole brain is damaged that we retain these abilities. If there is an afterlife then that diminishes the value of this life.

Life can be good exactly because you're free from having something to live for. In fact, having something to live for will likely prevent you from having other things to live for.

For example, those who live for their professional careers and therefore neglect their children, partners, parents, or friends. In what sense could their lives be good? Surely not by having careers to live for. If they would instead live for their children, then others would be neglected. If they would live for all of them, then they would live for none of them in particular.

Most people try to care as well as possible for their careers, children, partners, parents, friends etc.. without living for any of them in particular. The latter is for single-minded fanatics, marketers, ideologues or war mongers hoping to make people give up their lives for some special interest.

You're misunderstanding if you think I have said that life is all positive, just a bed of roses with no thorns. Living fully, though, is not a matter of merely coping. Whether you see life as predominately good or bad is always up to you and is a function of your thinking; there is no objective measure even of what life is, let alone of what it is worth. — John

I don't think so. I think by being brought into existence you are exposed to many harms and stress. We MUST put forth energy. There is no default sleep mode that is optional. It is an all or nothing package. We MUST contend with survival, getting along in society, being comfortable, and we MUST go about seeking this or that goal. To have children is to create a situation where they must DEAL with survival-through-cultural-upkeep and boredom-transformed-into-goal-seeking. The perpetual willing nature of the human animal propels us forward. We are always becoming but never being. On top of this "structural" suffering of the pendulum of our survival/entertainment needs and wants, is the contingent suffering of ALL the negative things we encounter. Mindset or not, we are harmed by being exposed to existence.

I contended earlier that families (at least the modern day version thereof) are just ways to combat boredom. It is boredom literally multiplied. One does not want to look inward too much, lest one sees the sheer instrumentality. Rather, it is presumed that if one is concerned with another beings' outcome, this will alleviate one's own need to introspect. Now, of course that is just one "background" reason out of many cultural ones (i.e. social expectations, babies are cute, accidents, the need to anchor one's direction into a role and responsibility, etc. etc.), but it is one manifestation of our own unwillingness to look at our own nature of striving for nothing- boredom and survival-through-cultural upkeep. A family unit to be concerned with tries to deflect the question from oneself and thus perpetuate the cycle.

As Schopenhauer said:
It lies, then, in the very nature of our existence to take the form of constant motion, and to offer no possibility of our ever attaining the rest for which we are always striving. We are like a man running downhill, who cannot keep on his legs unless he runs on, and will inevitably fall if he stops; or, again, like a pole balanced on the tip of one’s finger; or like a planet, which would fall into its sun the moment it ceased to hurry forward on its way. Unrest is the mark of existence.
-Studies in Pessimism, by Arthur Schopenhauer
On the Vanity of Existence.

Ok, I see what you are saying. I meditate so I can see directly that when thought stops contentment arises and that is the lowest possible energy state of the complete system (the brain). But probably the lowest energy state is sleep or death. and harmony acts but doesn't reason, if it didn't how could harmony exist? Harmony needs action in order for it to exist. Where is the harmony in a completely still nothing?

I don't see how you got "to be or not to be is not worth considering" from "Socrates said death may be the greatest of all blessings." How does all of this making to be or not to be is not worth considering? Because I would be so content that it wouldn't matter? AKA: — intrapersona

Death is not a complete system. A car engine idling nicely is a complete system expressing the lowest possible energy state, while engine parts scattered around a garage is an incomplete system that must first be assembled.

Harmony is not any particular action, but the relationship between different actions. If the car engine is not properly tuned it will not express the lowest possible energy state but, instead, it will rumble and backfire and whatnot. A more common example in physics is two pendulum clocks hung on a wall which will vibrate or shake the wall compelling one another to eventually swing in unison. Once they do swing in unison they no longer have to vibrate the wall to maintain the relationship.

They form what is called a self-organizing system and if I bump one clock the wall will help to absorb some of the energy preventing the two from swinging further out of sync. Similarly, during an earthquake the two clocks will swing wildly out of sync absorbing some of the energy and helping to preserve all three. This is the same principle used today to prevent skyscrapers from swaying too much and it expresses the resilience, efficiency, and creativity of a self-organizing system, but when they swing in unison they neither act nor reason to maintain their relationship.

Contentment comes at no cost nor does death. When we die, all our trials and tribulations are over and you could say that death is similar to the harmony of the lowest possible energy state in that respect.

It makes little sense to say that "we are harmed by being exposed to existence". We are not exposed to existence; we either exist or we do not. And as I have already pointed out, no one is suggesting that existence does not involve some harm.

It is true that we are always becoming; becoming is being. Be-ing is not a static changeless condition; how could it be? Nothing you say in your response addresses the main point I made; that there is no objective measure of the worth of a life in terms of pain vs pleasure or anything else.

As Chesterton writes:
"Upon the whole, I came to the conclusion that the optimist thought everything good except the pessimist, and that the pessimist thought everything bad except himself."

In the passage you quoted Schopenhauer writes that "unrest is the mark of existence". Taken in the the most literal sense that is trivially true. But if by "unrest' he means 'dissatisfaction' then the fitting response would be. "How could you possibly know that all creatures, including humans are predominately dissatisfied? Dissatisfaction and satisfaction are feelings, and it seems perfectly obvious that when it comes to humans the ratios of these feelings to one another vary enormously in different lives." And of course no one should be so unreasonable as to suggest that Schopenhauer's gloomy, perverse and even gloating habit of cultivating his tendency to focus on his dissatisfaction, and the thoughts attending them, could have amplified his feelings of dissatisfaction, and cemented his profession of pessimism, now should they?

I look at it like, purposes only apply to individual ends and aims. I eat because it am hungry, find warmth because I'm cold, do activities because I'm bored, drink because I'm an alcoholic :), drive my car because I want to go somewhere, etc. I don't think you can combine all these separate purposes for separate actions, under an overall umbrella purpose. So that you eat because you're hungry, and drink because you're thirsty, and yet you both eat and drink because of a larger overall purpose like say living for god, experiencing pleasure, improving the world, whatever purpose you pick. It's like doing something for one reason, and yet you're *really* doing something for another reason. — dukkha

Ok, I understand and fair enough but no matter what activity you do, you are still enganged in an activity that encompasses all of them called "living" and it is NOT absurd to ask "why live". When someone asks "why live?" they are asking "what is the purpose of living?" which doesn't seem absurd to ask.

Yes purpose exists in individual components of tasks in life but the one task we all have no matter what all other tasks may be is the one of living. You could say it is the MOST deserving of having a purpose and yet we can't seem to find a rational solution to this yet.

Hmmm, okay--still not sure I get that, though. For one, it doesn't make any sense to me to suppose that "I" am somehow different than something like a "survival mechanism" built into me. "I" am simply the totality of my body, and in terms of consciousness, including personality, particular brain states (which are dynamic). Something like a "survival mechanism" would also be just a factor of how my body, including my brain, happens to be constructed/happens to function, hence that "survival mechanism" would be identical to (a part of) me. — Terrapin Station

Would you also call the effiel tower part of you because it inhabits the same material you are made from? Or shares the atmosphere around you?

That which you can not control in your mind is not you, that which IS you is that which you are aware of and in control of. YOU don't beat your heart, your brain does it for you. YOU don't flinch at the faintist hint of harm but your brain does. catch my drift?

When I say that "I don't have the slightest inclination . . ." I'm simply noting that thoughts questioning whether I should continue to live don't at all occur to me, and when someone like yourself suggests that they should, it just strikes me as absurd to even consider that it would be a worthwhile thing to ponder. — Terrapin Station

That suggests then that you are complacent with your experience of the world and what you know of it. Some of us aren't happy with what knowledge we are given about our existence and it leads us down many different paths of ascetic practices, psychedelic drug use and excessive philosophy reading to try and make sense of something that can't be made sense of in order to make us realize there is no point in trying and then we give up slowly or instantly in to complacency. As someone else on here suggested previously, what philosopher isn't neurotic in some sense already?

Purposes are necessarily present to consciousness. They do not exist otherwise. So both human and non-human animals only have purposes insofar as those are explicitly present to consciousness. That's not to deny that a lot of behavioral tendencies are evolutionarily selected for because they make survival until the possibility of procreation more likely--and that's simply because contrary tendencies are not as likely to be genetically passed on, because the potential parent creatures are less likely to survive to procreate when those characteristics obtain, but it would be misconceived to identify that fact with a "purpose." — Terrapin Station

So you are saying our existence is ultimately absurd and we just give ourselves small purposes to take our mind of that fact. There could never be an ultimate goal because it is absurd. Where is your proof that there isn't a cosmic/universal purpose though? For all we know, there could be.

Fear likewise only obtains when it's present to consciousness. — Terrapin Station

That suggests that all other animals have consciousness, since they display signs of fear (neurologically too)

because it might well be the case following death, so it is potentially an option for action in life, just take an overdose and you're there, in a state of absolute nonexistence, the purpose is then clear, there is none. — Punshhh

because it might well be the case following death, so it is potentially an option for action in life, just take an overdose and YOU MIGHT BE there, in a state of absolute nonexistence, the purpose is then clear, there is none.

Just contradicted yourself, you say it might be then you say it is.

if they have agency they are at liberty to persue purposes, they have purpose — Punshhh

how did you get from "they have liberty to pursue purposes" to "they have purpose'?

This is a conflation between instinct and intellectual strategic action. Also you have ignored my classification of purposes. It's almost as though you are not interested in discussing purpose. — Punshhh

I wouldn't call being afraid to fall of a cliff "intellectual strategic action", more like instinct.

I also wouldn't call this a classification of purposes:

"that the answer is for humanity to secure its long term survival with a healthy social culture, which manages the planetary resources sustainably and cares for and maintains the biosphere."

That is just something that humans keep in check in order to sustain a healthy existence, it isn't a purpose to live.

So are you going now to appeal to the second category of purposes, those in reference to any agency, or process resulting in the existence of this whole world we find ourselves in? Because this seems to be what you are looking towards in the OP. — Punshhh

I don't really know what you are saying, I never saw a distinct classification of purposes. Nor do I see what the illusion of agency has anything to do with it. SOrry.

Living fully, though, is not a matter of merely coping. Whether you see life as predominately good or bad is always up to you and is a function of your thinking; there is no objective measure even of what life is, let alone of what it is worth. — John

I agree, but what does it mean to live "fully"? To take every opportunity you get? Why? To live a more dynamic lifestyle? Why? More interesting? Why does an interesting life equate to more value? Wouldn't a more purposeful life equate to more value? If you look at anything that is interestng but meaningless and purposeless, its novelty seems to fade rather quickly.

I am not talking about the meaning of life here but a purpose that sustains one from avoiding inevitable death
— intrapersona

Can you explain the difference for me? It certainly seems that one sustains oneself with the purpose to avoid death, and that death is inevitable, yet you seem to want another purpose for sustaining life. Well I offer the purpose of overcoming one's need to sustain oneself, one's need for the the personal continuation that then requires in turn a purpose.

Death is inevitable for physical beings, but it has no significance except to that which sustains itself. Self has no purpose, it is unnecessary and harmful to life. So life's purpose is to end self before death ends life. — unenlightened

The meaning of life is what life means, what it IS. The purpose of life is why were are. Some might say the meaning of life entails the purpose but I think that is a misguided understand of the classifications.

I said in my OP that the only rational conclusion I could reach was that we like any other animal just want to avoid death, that is our ONLY reason to live.

I want to find another purpose to life because that one we have is just absurd and downright foolish. It is circular. Why live? Not to die of course! Well why not die? To live of course! Why live then? To not die of course! ........................................................................................................ *cough*

People live good lives regardless of whether they live for something or nothing. A good life doesn't suddenly arise from having something to live for. Nor would the lack of something to live for imply a bad life. — jkop

You didn't list why not, you just stated your premise again.

Explain why you think people don't need purpose in life in order to live good lives.

What is good? Is good happy? Fulfilled? How much of the time are they like that in order to termed "good life"?

For me the point is to live a life "with heart"; meaning to live in ways that cultivate those things which are the most important to you. What is most important to you, though, is not something that may be coldly calculated, but something that must be felt. The way I see it, things are purposeless if they do not touch your emotions; that is if you don't feel them. What, for example, would be the point of marrying someone if you felt no love for them? Or paying lip-service to some religion or other if it really meant nothing to you; if it didn't inspire any feelings of transcendence or love in you?

You could scrap some stuff, but just having the highlights would seem to be lacking something valuable and important. — Sapientia

yes, that would be strange indeed.

I didn't regurgitate what you said word for word, but I don't think that it's too far off. But perhaps I misunderstood.

I don't live exclusively for those moments, like I said, so that criticism doesn't apply to me. How many people do? They might say that they live for those moments when asked what they live for, but I think that people just tend to mention the highlights. Whereas, if they gave it enough thought, they would realise that the "whole package" - highlights included - very much matters. You could scrap some stuff, but just having the highlights would seem to be lacking something valuable and important.

I think the fact that such moments are temporary (or, in your words, transitory and fleeting) doesn't really come into it - except as one of the reasons that they're actually worthwhile.

And I think you're wrong when you say that they don't give any more purpose to one's life, but just make life more "exciting". They can do, and actually do in some cases, and you can lose the scare quotes from around the word "exciting". — Sapientia

I was saying that purpose can not be happiness or pleasure. You havn't said anything about why it isn't, you just told me that people think their lives matter and that a finite existence makes life more valueable (which I can see the sense in).

I asked you to reply to my OP about claiming extensions of human experience as purpose is absurd but you didn't manage to do that.

For me the point is to live a life "with heart"; meaning to live in ways that cultivate those things which are the most important to you. What is most important to you, though, is not something that may be coldly calculated, but something that must be felt. The way I see it, things are purposeless if they do not touch your emotions; that is if you don't feel them. What, for example, would be the point of marrying someone if you felt no love for them? Or paying lip-service to some religion or other if it really meant nothing to you; if it didn't inspire any feelings of transcendence or love in you? — John

Ok, how many people out there still live life and are pretty much emotionless? How about the 40-50-60 year olds who are lost the love interest in their spouse but continue to engage in meaningless toil 8 hours of the day? For what? Why do THEY live?

Like I said in my OP john, claiming experiences (or any other facet of your body or bodily functions) as a purpose to living is absurd. You know that if I say to you "I live for my right pinky toe" or "I live for my dead stuffed cat int he living room" is completely ridiculous. Well your statement about living for your emotions is no different than for a dead stuffed cat.

I don't feel like saying much else about your OP. I disagree with the gist of it, and I think your comparison of happiness with your "pinky toe" is rather silly, and shouldn't be taken seriously. — Sapientia

Yeah, except you can't explain why so you just sit back and call it silly because you don't have intellectual nerve to actually refute it. Perhaps dare I say, even the intellectual capability to refute it!

You know it's true deep down, but you don't want to admit it because it disables all of your illusory beliefs you set up to give your life value and meaning.

Don't blame me for being silly because you are afraid to change your thinking, that is a form of bigotry.

Let's see if you can respond to this as a philosopher, someone with high regard for reasoning and without some form of hate, aggression or tension of any kind who resorts to words like "silly" to try and attack the other party.