An answer to the question, what is the meaning or purpose in my life? Is a person's life cannot have meaning or purpose independent of the species or race of which they are a member. So their purpose and meaning is equivalent to the purpose or meaning of the species or race as a whole. The purpose and meaning of the race as a whole is,
"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." — Punshhh

That is just saying our purpose is to going on towards going on towards going on at the same time caring for our biosphere.

Why are we here daddy? to survive of course. But why daddy? why to survive of course? but why daddy? why to survive of course... can you catch a snake before it eats its own tail?

There are small/weak purposes like instinct and mowing the lawn and then there are grandiose purpose like why humans even exist at all. It is absurd and foolish to claim small/weak purposes as grandiose ones (which is what my OP pointed out). Yet you are all seeming to disregard this.

It means I think the purpose of life is to learn to feel ever more subtly and deeply.

It means I think the purpose of life is to learn to feel ever more subtly and deeply. — John

What is the purpose of life daddy? To learn to feel ever more subtly and deeply of course. But why daddy? Well because it enhances our lives. But why do that daddy? Because we live better lives. But why live better lives daddy? Because... it makes it more purposeful?

Does a better life make it more purposeful? Aren't you sort of ignoring what I said about how it is absurd and/or foolish to claim small/weak purposes as grandiose ones (which is what my OP pointed out).

Not trying to say you are a fool, just want to argue my point in the OP to see if it holds up to truth ;)

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. How could there be a "huge debate" over whether the brain gives rise to consciousness when we don't have one single case of a person without a brain being conscious, and when every person with a perfectly functioning brain are conscious. — Harry Hindu

That fact seems to go in my favor, for if there is no one without a brain at all how can they say what it is like to not have a brain and be dead? Therefore, how can you claim what death is like? Which you seem to do.

If you dob't think there is debate about what consciousness is and if it is synonymous with brain states you can read this thread and if you are right you will find that everyone shares the same opinion to you, if you are wrong you will find that I am right in that there is a debate about such things. I just created it for you to blabber mouth your unvalidated opinion in :D http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/721/is-consciousness-created-in-the-brain

It is you who believe in fairy tales of "spirits" and the "supernatural" (theories that can't be falsified) having the same explanatory power that scientific theories (theories that can be falsified) have. If there were a fire-breathing dragon in Ukraine, you and I could both prove or disprove it by going there and finding evidence of it's existence if not see it directly. That would be a falsifiable claim. Theories about the existence of some supernatural domain aren't. — Harry Hindu

So did I actually claim there was a dragon did I? Looks like you misread just so you can have something to debate... sorry I mean ARGUE to me.

If you are saying that you are more than your body, then the burden of proof lies on your shoulders, not mine. — Harry Hindu

It lies on both of our shoulders if we want to assert anything beyond what we see in the physical world. Just because they don't come back doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere else, you can't claim that. All you can claim is that they are no longer in the physical world, whatever the physical world even fricken is! which you don't know either!

So you don't believe a more fulfilling life is better than a less fulfilling life?

Living a purposeful life may or may not be enriching depending on the choice of purposes.

So, a way of living is recommended not because it is "more purposeful" whatever that even means, but because it is more enriching.

You seem quite confused about the nature of purpose.

Right, but what's the point of questioning the meaning of 'good' in a discussion on whether purpose is necessary or sufficient for a good life? — jkop

I didn't think we were questioning whether purpose is necessary or sufficient but whether it exists at all.

My statement was asking whether a good life=a purposeful life and if so how?

I was saying that purpose can not be happiness or pleasure.
— intrapersona

I'm not sure if I've understood you correctly, because that seems like a trivial point. Apples can't be bananas and circles can't be squares.

My counterpoint would be that seeking to attain happiness or pleasure can be a purpose. — Sapientia

It is not a trivial point because if you ask anyone on the street what their purpose of life is they will claim it to be pleasure: my wife, my kids, food, enjoying my work, my hobbies etc. etc. etc.

Happiness can be a purpose as in it can be a goal but a goal is not the same thing as a life purpose. If I have a goal to peel 50,000 apples wouldn't it be ridiculous to claim it as the sole reason for my existence? Likewise it is ridiculous to claim the sole reason of your existence to seek happiness. There are small/weak purposes like instinct and mowing the lawn and then there are grandiose purpose like why humans even exist at all. It is absurd and foolish to claim small/weak purposes as grandiose ones (which is what my OP pointed out)

So you don't believe a more fulfilling life is better than a less fulfilling life? — John

where did I say that? You keep talking as if you know what the purpose of life is, when quite clearly in the post YOU QUOTED ME ON I was saying that we haven't proved that yet.

Don't you remember?

"There are small/weak purposes like instinct and mowing the lawn and then there are grandiose purpose like why humans even exist at all. It is absurd and foolish to claim small/weak purposes as grandiose ones (which is what my OP pointed out)"

It is not a trivial point because if you ask anyone on the street what their purpose of life is they will claim it to be pleasure: my wife, my kids, food, enjoying my work, my hobbies etc. etc. etc.

Happiness can be a purpose as in it can be a goal but a goal is not the same thing as a life purpose. If I have a goal to peel 50,000 apples wouldn't it be ridiculous to claim it as the sole reason for my existence? Likewise it is ridiculous to claim the sole reason of your existence to seek happiness

There is no "purpose of life" that can be "proved"; that is precisely where your confusion lies; your confusion consists in asking that inappropriate question. Purposes are felt, not proven.

And no, I haven't just told you that. I addressed your OP, as you encouraged me to do, and I have countered several of your points. — Sapientia

Is "several" a hyperbole? because I only made 2 points in my OP and I don't ever remember being told how they were flawed in truth (of which I would like).

You made a false analogy, and I said as much. If your conclusion that it's absurd depends upon this false analogy, then that's good reason to reject your argument.

Can we drop this jargon of "extensions of human experience"? How about simply seeking pleasure or contentedness or happiness, for example? Why the heck would that be absurd? (And don't give me some rubbish about your pinky toe). — Sapientia

You claim it is false but don't provide any reasoning as to why.

It is not a trivial point because if you ask anyone on the street what their purpose of life is they will claim it to be pleasure: my wife, my kids, food, enjoying my work, my hobbies etc. etc. etc.

Happiness can be a purpose as in it can be a goal but a goal is not the same thing as a life purpose. If I have a goal to peel 50,000 apples wouldn't it be ridiculous to claim it as the sole reason for my existence? Likewise it is ridiculous to claim the sole reason of your existence to seek happiness. There are small/weak purposes like instinct and mowing the lawn and then there are grandiose purpose like why humans even exist at all. It is absurd and foolish to claim small/weak purposes as grandiose ones (which is what my OP pointed out) IE. "Why do humans live? To mow the lawn of course". "Why do humans live? To experience the biological reaction sadness of course" Why do humans live? To experience the biological reaction called happiness of course"

I very much doubt that most Buddhist monks, most of the time, have nothing at all to live for. They meditate for a reason, don't they? — Sapientia

No.

Those in glass houses...

It is by NOT wanting to attain, achieve that they find their success, their "nirvana". It comes when they give up completely. They enter in to deep portions of the human psyche well beyond what you and I experience and are able to do things like set themselves on fire and not flinch a muscle.

I'm saying the very idea of purpose considers life unsatisfactory. The satisfied don't merely have no need to look for purpose, they don't live for a purpose at all. For them, there is just living.

To think in terms of living for a purpose is to consider life meaningless. As if life was nothing, with meaning only to be found in escaping it to some notion of purpose.

Why life? There is no reason or purpose to it. One just lives. No-one gets a choice in the matter. Life expresses meaning, whether it be the joy of fulfilment or the despair of the illusion of meaningless. It laughs in the face of purpose or reason, existing without then, despite their protests it's impossible.

The self-evident truth only asserts itself within the silent void that the truth determines everything including justifying itself because virtue is its own reward and wonder is the beginning of wisdom. Humor, beauty, love, and life must ultimately justify themselves if they are to be true.

So you say... yet by your own admission, a justification hasn't been found and is, by the plurality of truths of the living, impossible. (e.g it makes no more sense to say I live for happiness than it does my little toe).

And the world remains full of humour, beauty, love and life anyway.

The idea they must be justified is a self-flagellating illusion, an instance where our own minds take us to deny ourselves and the world around us.

That is just saying our purpose is to going on towards going on towards going on at the same time caring for our biosphere.

Yes, I know, but this is the best we can do in the absence of the knowledge of the purposes of the agency, or process resulting in the existence of the existence we find ourselves in. Remember my second category of purpose?

There are small/weak purposes like instinct and mowing the lawn and then there are grandiose purpose like why humans even exist at all. It is absurd and foolish to claim small/weak purposes as grandiose ones (which is what my OP pointed out). Yet you are all seeming to disregard this.

yes, this is what I was pointing out in my post when I categorised purpose into two kinds. This is the second category, as I wrote it;
"The purpose of agents responsible for the existence of the existence we find ourselves in."

But you are conflating the two categories which results in the confusion. As I said, in order to consider the purpose of the agency, or process resulting in the existence of the existence we find ourselves in, we can only coherently address it in reference to that agency, or process. But unfortunately we can't do this because we are in ignorance of what, or who it is. End of story.

This philosophical problem is why ideas like God and spirituality were thought of in the first place.

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.

"The illusion of agency" is an unwarranted assumption. Determinism hasn't been proved to be the case, it is merely speculation.
The distinct classification of purposes is due to a distinct classification of agencies. For it is agency which generates purpose. Without agency there cannot be purpose, it is meaningless. Unless you include within the bounds of purpose the physical processes of matter, carrying out their own purposes.

So, do you agree that purpose is generated by agency and that there is no purpose in the absence of agency?

That fact seems to go in my favor, for if there is no one without a brain at all how can they say what it is like to not have a brain and be dead? — intrapersona

There is no "if" about it. There are known medical cases of hydranencephaly. Most of the brain never forms and 90% of babies self-abort when this is the case. If they make it out of the womb they die within a few years even with all the help and medical support they get and is required just to keep them alive that long. So imagine what it would be like if they didn't have any brain at all.

If you dob't think there is debate about what consciousness is and if it is synonymous with brain states you can read this thread and if you are right you will find that everyone shares the same opinion to you, if you are wrong you will find that I am right in that there is a debate about such things. I just created it for you to blabber mouth your unvalidated opinion in — intrapersona

LOL. You're giving me a link to a philosophy thread. How about a link to a scientific thread that shows that it is still under debate. Your pathetic attempts at insulting me just show me that I'm wasting my time with a loser. The list of reasonable people on these forums is shrinking.

It lies on both of our shoulders if we want to assert anything beyond what we see in the physical world. Just because they don't come back doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere else, you can't claim that. All you can claim is that they are no longer in the physical world, whatever the physical world even fricken is! which you don't know either! — intrapersona

Yep. I'm wasting my time.

So you say... yet by your own admission, a justification hasn't been found and is, by the plurality of truths of the living, impossible. (e.g it makes no more sense to say I live for happiness than it does my little toe). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Wrong, by my admission they justify themselves. Other than using analogies, I can no more explain how they justify themselves then I can explain color to a blind man. But I can assert that those who claim they don't justify themselves are living in denial and use a pragmatic approach to prove the point.

It is not a trivial point because if you ask anyone on the street what their purpose of life is they will claim it to be pleasure: my wife, my kids, food, enjoying my work, my hobbies etc. etc. etc. — intrapersona

Look, I wanted to rule out one possible interpretation: that you were just saying that the one isn't the same thing as the other. That is what I said would be trivial, and not any other interpretation. So don't misapply my criticism.

If, on the other hand, that's not what you meant, then it seems we're back to square one.

Happiness can be a purpose as in it can be a goal but a goal is not the same thing as a life purpose. If I have a goal to peel 50,000 apples wouldn't it be ridiculous to claim it as the sole reason for my existence? — intrapersona

Isn't appealing to ridiculousness much like appealing to silliness? Is it only wrong when I do it?

I agree, they don't convey the same meaning. But it can be a life purpose nevertheless, so that doesn't mean a thing. And speaking of "the sole reason for one's existence" doesn't address anything that I've said, since, I don't know about you, but I've just been talking about a life purpose - which can be or comprise multiple things, as opposed to one single thing. There's no need to narrow it down like that - although that would seem to be more convenient for your position, so I'd get why you might want to attack that instead.

Likewise it is ridiculous to claim the sole reason of your existence to seek happiness. — intrapersona

But that's not my claim. My claim doesn't say anything about "the sole reason of my existence". Why should I care about this other claim that you're attacking?

It isn't ridiculous at all to say that one of the things that I live for is to seek out and attain happiness. What's ridiculous is to say that that's absurd. And even more so if it is based on a comparison with your pinky toe.

There are small/weak purposes like instinct and mowing the lawn and then there are grandiose purpose like why humans even exist at all. It is absurd and foolish to claim small/weak purposes as grandiose ones (which is what my OP pointed out) — intrapersona

That particular example about mowing the lawn does seem rather absurd to me, but then I don't value mowing the lawn in anywhere near the same way that I value the things that I live for. For someone else who really values gardening, it might well be different.

You could take any one specific and seemingly insignificant example in isolation and say the same thing, but that wouldn't prove anything. Even if you call it "ridiculous", " absurd", or "foolish". For me, it's more of a collective thing, and it's about what I get out of it, not how others judge it.

The greater purpose is the reason why I seek out these activities. It really doesn't matter if you call them something else, like goals, or if you think that it's foolish or ridiculous, or if you bring up instinct, which is irrelevant. I am not a purely instinctual being, and, unlike other beings, I am capable of rational thought. That means that I could reason to go against my instincts, and stop seeking these things out, or to even go as far as suicide. But I haven't done so, for good reason. If I had no good reason, then things would be very different. I might not even be here right now. But I do have something to live for, so I live.

Is "several" a hyperbole? Because I only made 2 points in my OP and I don't ever remember being told how they were flawed in truth (of which I would like). — intrapersona

No, it's not, and you definitely made more points than that - even if you single out just two of them as the main ones. And you must have poor memory or something. Bit odd how you mention some of the reasons that I've told you, yet you claim not to remember what they are. Wanting more details is not the same thing.

You claim it is false but don't provide any reasoning as to why. — intrapersona

Because they are nothing alike - and don't take that literally. There's a reason why virtually no one lives for their or your pinky toe, and innumerable people live to attain happiness. They obviously have some different qualities, and we obviously find those of happiness considerably more appealing, valuable, or worthwhile than those of our respective pinky toes or of your pinky toe.

And, by the way, if you just copy and past portions of your previous posts in response to something I've said, I'll simply disregard it. So it's not worth the bother. You really should stop doing that. It doesn't reflect well on you. You should be charitable enough to assume that we've read and understood it the first time, and don't need it simply copy and pasted. Try to reiterate or explain rather than simply repeat.

No. — intrapersona

They don't live for any reason at all? Yeah right. Like I said, they have an odd way of showing it. Sometimes actions speak louder than words. And I already gave the example of suicidal actions as an exception.

It is by NOT wanting to attain, achieve that they find their success, their "nirvana". It comes when they give up completely. They enter in to deep portions of the human psyche well beyond what you and I experience and are able to do things like set themselves on fire and not flinch a muscle. — intrapersona

They seek nirvana, at least initially - whether they convince themselves that they want it or not. You can't do that if you're dead. So you must live for at least that reason if you have any chance of doing what you set out to do.

No one sets themselves on fire for no reason. And that doesn't sound like the good life to me. Nor does a sort of comatose-like state. So, what's your point?

its wrong because It is vain — intrapersona

Vanity is excessive pride. What's excessive about it?
Now we've gone around in a circle.

and illusory — intrapersona

There's no such thing as objective achievement?
Well, one can still strive for subjective achievement.

But just think about if you had no one else to compare yourself to, and it was only you in existence? Of which standards would you set yourself up against? How would you know if you did well and could therefore be proud of yourself? It seems you NEED others to feel good about yourself, just not directly need them to see how good you are as you say, — intrapersona

It's hard to know how I would feel in such a circumstance because I've never been in one but it's possible that I feel neither happy nor sad ( about that particular thing). And I could still compare myself to a previous state.

That fact seems to go in my favor, for if there is no one without a brain at all how can they say what it is like to not have a brain and be dead? Therefore, how can you claim what death is like? Which you seem to do. — intrapersona

If there is still experiences after "death" then there was no death. You are still alive and having experiences. How would you even know you "died"? What would death mean if you continue to exist? What use would a body have?

You see, this is typical of philosophy - of creating problems by the simple misuse of terms. If you continue to have experiences then you are still alive, not dead, and that is what I'm talking about being interesting as opposed to experiencing nothing. Never mind that you'd need to explain how you would continue having experiences after you don't have any senses or a brain. Your argument is simply based on a misuse of terms to the point that you obliterate any meaning the word, "death" has.

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? — intrapersona

No, that's not part of my body. It's not the same material, either, but that wouldn't matter. My neighbor's fence and the Eiffel Tower aren't a part of each other even though they're both wrought iron.

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? — intrapersona

I understand that's your view, but it's not a view I at all agree with.

I disagree because (a) I dont see why control should be the demarcation criterion, (b) I think that "control" is rather ambiguous anyway (and for example with respect to free will, I believe that at best we'd be probabilistically exploiting randomness), and (c) I'd say that my brain is me; I'm not something separate from my physical body in any manner.

That suggests then that you are complacent with your experience of the world and what you know of it. — intrapersona

Yes, quite. Which isn't to say I've done none of the things you mention, and obviously I'm quite interested in philosophy, but my motivation for any of that stuff isn't dissatisfaction with the world, myself, my place in the world, etc.

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. — intrapersona

This is more of an aside, but I dislike the word "absurd" in this context. I prefer to use "absurd" in (a) the sense it's used in the arts a la "absurdist comedy," which is a way of emphasizing a departure from a realist approach--Monty Python's Flying Circus is a fine example of absurdist comedy, and (b) in the more general sense out "outlandish" or "ridiculous." I'm a huge fan of absurdism in the arts.

At any rate, yes, re the drier philosophical definition, where it's basically asserting antirealism with respect to "meaning," "purpose," etc., I'm definitely denying that there is any "ultimate purpose." Any purpose anyone has is a purpose they create for themselves.

Re proof, empirical claims are not provable period. But the reason to believe that there's no objective purpose is both (1) a functional analysis of what people are referring to (so, behaviorally basically) with purpose talk, and (2) the complete absence of evidence for anything that could amount to objective purpose.

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

We can't know what anyone else's mental content (if any) is for certain from third-person observations because mental cotent only manifests as such from a first-person perspective. Behavioral indicators are certainly reasons to believe that others experience particular mental content, and the fact that others possess brains similar to our own, which we can third-person observe in similar states to our own, is also a reason to believe that others have similar mental states to our own. At that, however, there is less reason to believe that others experience similar mental states as their brains more strongly differ from our own, and there's a danger of anthropomorphizing when it comes to other animals and other things. Still, I think there are good reasons to believe that many non-human animals experience mental states such as fear.

But you are conflating the two categories which results in the confusion. As I said, in order to consider the purpose of the agency, or process resulting in the existence of the existence we find ourselves in, we can only coherently address it in reference to that agency, or process. But unfortunately we can't do this because we are in ignorance of what, or who it is. End of story. — Punshhh

Ok, I say that I was conflating the two categories now. Thanks

"The illusion of agency" is an unwarranted assumption. Determinism hasn't been proved to be the case, it is merely speculation. — Punshhh

I wouldn't call the libet experiment "speculation". It indicates our actions are driven by unconscious decisions and that we percieve them as conscious by mistake.

So, do you agree that purpose is generated by agency and that there is no purpose in the absence of agency? — Punshhh

There could be purpose both ways. If it was created by agency then it would be akin to what willowofdarkness says "To think in terms of living for a purpose is to consider life meaningless. As if life was nothing, with meaning only to be found in escaping it to some notion of purpose."

I wouldn't call the libet experiment "speculation". It indicates our actions are driven by unconscious decisions and that we percieve them as conscious by mistake.

Yes, I see this, but in terms or agency this is irrelevant, we can be unconscious agents and still have agency. For example by consciously planning a strategy and practicing and learning it repeatedly, leading to it being undertaken unconsciously at a later time. Also agency doesn't require "free will", I suggest that all cellular and multi-cellular organisms have agency and most of them don't have "free will".

By agency I mean a self organising system which develops a complex strategic action as a response to the environment. A more sophisticated kind of agency can be seen in humans. For example, humans used intellection to develop computation and robotics. So at some point in the future AI will imerge and will have been created/generated solely by human agency.

There could be purpose both ways. If it was created by agency then it would be akin to what willowofdarkness says "To think in terms of living for a purpose is to consider life meaningless. As if life was nothing, with meaning only to be found in escaping it to some notion of purpose."

I understand what Willow is saying here, however I think that it is more a comment about having a respect and a sense of reverence for the living of life in the here and now, as opposed to ignoring the present in favour of some imagined future moment. I don't think it is actually a commenting on purpose itself.

It is true that one can live a fulfilling life without any awareness of a purpose. But this does not mean that there is no purpose in our existence. But as I said, I don't think we can know the purpose in the absence of a knowledge of the purposes entertained by the agency which brought us into existence to begin with. For example God, or an advanced alien. Although, I think we can conclude that whatever that purpose was/is, our presence is required for it to be carried out. So we can perhaps come up with a few initial thoughts about what that purpose maybe in terms of a general perspective.

Yes, I see this, but in terms or agency this is irrelevant, we can be unconscious agents and still have agency. — Punshhh

Right, but this isn't OUR agency. It is the agency of something of which we have no control over and are not a part of (the unconscious brain). We are separate from it even though we share the same house.

I suggest that all cellular and multi-cellular organisms have agency and most of them don't have "free will".By agency I mean a self organising system which develops a complex strategic action as a response to the environment. — Punshhh

I would call that autonomy, not agency. Agency implies careful deliberation, decision making, conscious choices etc.

I understand what Willow is saying here, however I think that it is more a comment about having a respect and a sense of reverence for the living of life in the here and now, as opposed to ignoring the present in favour of some imagined future moment. I don't think it is actually a commenting on purpose itself. — Punshhh

But as I said, I don't think we can know the purpose in the absence of a knowledge of the purposes entertained by the agency which brought us into existence to begin with. — Punshhh

So are you talking about my fathers desire to ejaculate inside my mother? As that would be the purpose of the agent (my father) who chose to bring me in to existence.

Or do you refer to all life when you say "US" as in "god was the agent who brought us in to existence".

Oh no, now I see it was the latter. But I have seen many people reject this notion in favor that there is no agency that brought us in, it was just a fluke of nature. single celled organism evolved after lightning struck certain chemicals in the atmosphere and we are now just an absurd, random nothing with no rhyme or reason. How do incorporate purpose then? It would seem to go back to what willowofdarkness said: "To think in terms of living for a purpose is to consider life meaningless. As if life was nothing, with meaning only to be found in escaping it to some notion of purpose."