Hello. Thanks for your post. For whatever it is worth to anyone, what popped into mind first after reading your message was some of the writing of Daniel Quinn, with whom you may be familiar. Some quotes, hopefully relevant:


“Do you see the slightest evidence anywhere in the universe that creation came to an end with the birth of man? Do you see the slightest evidence anywhere out there that man was the climax toward which creation had been straining from the beginning? ...Very far from it. The universe went on as before, the planet went on as before. Man's appearance caused no more stir than the appearance of jellyfish.”
― Daniel Quinn, Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit

“There's nothing fundamentally wrong with people. Given a story to enact that puts them in accord with the world, they will live in accord with the world. But given a story to enact that puts them at odds with the world, as yours does, they will live at odds with the world. Given a story to enact in which they are the lords of the world, they will ACT like lords of the world. And, given a story to enact in which the world is a foe to be conquered, they will conquer it like a foe, and one day, inevitably, their foe will lie bleeding to death at their feet, as the world is now.”
― Daniel Quinn, Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit

“The world is a very, very fine place. It wasn't a mess. It didn't need to be conquered and ruled by man. In other words, the world doesn't belong to man - but it does need man to belong to it. Some creature had to be the first to go through this...Some creature had to find the way, and if that happened, then...there was no limit to what could happen here. In other words, man does have a place in the world, but it's not his place to rule...Man's place is to be the first. Man's place is to be the first without being the last. Man's place is to figure out how it's possible to do that - and then to make room for all the rest who are capable of becoming what he's become. And maybe, when the time comes, it's man's place to be the teacher of all the rest who are capable of becoming what he's become. Not the only teacher, not the ultimate teacher. Maybe only the first teacher, the kindergarten teacher - but even that wouldn't be too shabby.”
― Daniel Quinn, Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit


The works of Daniel Quinn are filled with provocative nuggets like these, which I generally find interesting and helpful. Others may differ, of course. The overall timeline of Ishmael and its sequel The Story of B is over 10,000 years. He addresses the rise of the major world religions and philosophical movements as a reaction to what many felt as a critical situation. Arguably, it has gotten even more critical since then, with a greater population and higher stakes.

Thanks for considering these ideas. Hope they shed a little light on this large question.

Thanks for considering these ideas. Hope they shed a little light on this large question. — 0 thru 9

Yes, thanks for sharing as well. So I ask you, what is it about existence for?

Yes, thanks for sharing as well. So I ask you, what is it about existence for? — schopenhauer1

Thanks for the reply. Could you please possibly expand on your question to me? I was drawing a blank when considering your question. And also how it could relate to your OP, and the quotes i gave. I definitely think you are onto something, and it is a subject that is interesting as well as important, imho. So maybe rewording the question might help me, if you could. Thanks! :)

The purpose of life is living, no paradox to me. =

Why do people need to be born into the world in order to redeem it? — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure if your representation of various world religions is accurate. Abrahamic religions all see the world as "fallen" because of sin, and that we must "escape" and leave behind this problematic world and obtain salvation in Heaven with Yahweh. And Buddhism recognizes that life is suffering, and that we have to escape the cycle of rebirth in order to free ourselves (and others in the case of bodhisattvas) from the perpetual suffering. It's not about redeeming the world, it's about escaping the world, solving our problems, and seeking resolutions elsewhere.

Nietzsche criticized Christian morality for being slave-like, and specifically in this case for essentially saying that we ought to give birth to people in order to help them. This is quite poignant, I think. Just go to any Christian charity or apologetics website and you'll see this. They see themselves as doing to work of God, and see the uplifting of those in need as the highest good. In other words, it would seem as though the Good is obtained by cleaning up the mess. But apparently you can't save people if they never exist. So the whole process of saving people becomes important in-itself. Christian morality has the tendency then to see life as machine of goodness. The more people there are, the more people need saving, and saving is good. It is apparently a good thing to put people into a shitty situation in order to help get them out of the situation you put them in. It certainly feels good to help people... This is quite obviously "slave-like", in that the objectively shitty conditions of the "slaves" are twisted around to be seen as something to be cherished. A classic example of a coping mechanism - when no alternatives are apparent, twist reality to be more suitable to your tastes. However it seems pretty obvious to me that if they had an alternative to enduring a life of suffering, most would take it. If there was a way to get to Heaven without the help of Jesus, we'd all take it. But, alas, there isn't another way into Heaven - or so we are told.

Now, the Buddhist appropriation of birth, from my understanding (though don't quote me on this), and perhaps only within the higher-up levels of the religion, is that birth is actually an act of saving those from a worse existence (like an animal in the wild). If you don't have children, they will go on to be a wild animal in the wild and suffer even more. Re-birth is inevitable if you do not achieve nirvana. Not having children won't do anything. Karma literally is a bitch. At least that's what I understand it to be.

But in my opinion, "meaning" in the existential sense of purpose and justice is an imperfect coping mechanism; a hodge-podge method of ESCAPING (again! :( ) our condition by establishing a reason why things are happening the way they are and what our position is in the going-ons; a way of REASSURING ourselves that we are important (SELF-ESTEEM). Any sort of existentialist philosophy must then be powerful enough to ACTUALLY WORK but simultaneously flexible enough to JUSTIFY ITSELF as an AUTHENTIC way of life (and not just a coping mechanism). The absence of any such way leads one to extreme pessimism as panic, fear and meaninglessness solidify themselves, at least until one finds a suitable way to distract themselves.

Though I don't think there's a fundamental "right vs wrong", in a human experience morality isn't that hard to extract from one's daily experience. The: "Don't do unto others what you don't want others do unto you" kinda describes this mechanism.a bit. Technological development has (somewhat) enabled us to have our way without (consciously) harming others, we don't need actual slaves / animals to propel our vehicles, we use petrol. Such developments have made it possible to develop new moral standards shared by larger crowds where the means with which we got to such moral standards might be deemed morally repulsive after the fact.

The main thing I'm trying to hint at here it that, "wrong" is usually judged after the fact and "right" can, at best, be judged at the current moment. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", presupposing "good" in advance generally leads to ideology, I don't think I need to point to the dangers of most ideologies... Similarly, finding purpose as a set goal in advance might lead one to overlook the current moment in which it actually applies and gives one a (too) rigid framework to make sense of the world.

It's not hard to see humanity as "sinners" if you look at our pasts, even our own lives are hallmarked by behaviours we would generally find repulsive at a later age. (I guess this is the principle why we don't judge children with the same judicial laws as adults). Though a lack of certainty of what the future might hold might bring some despair, I do feel we're special. We don't know 'that' much about the universe yet but if you would observe our terraforming of earth, it's quite a feat compared to regions of space in which things appear to behave fully automatic / without intelligence. Though the future is uncertain, we're able to see the roads travelled (with, for example, the internet as an encyclopedia for everyone and in a scientific way concerning our environment, where both act as a history lesson we can learn from.

So, seeing this development as a purpose might at least give a glimmer of hope, even though it could potentially be destroyed in a flash. A lot of people are starting to take offense at global inequality and a large portion just wants to be assured they won't have to give up their piece of the pie. The goal of "equality for all" might appear like a good idea but as far as I can tell this idea is more akin to a form of social engineering in which we act as if people have no differences while we don't always account for the material means people need to live "the good life". Also, we could wonder if it's necessarily a good thing to let everyone share equally in material wealth, even if the means of generating it aren't harmful to the environment any more. If you just observe debates about providing people with a basic income in civil societies, not everyone is convinced that a "free lunch" would prove to be beneficial.

So "redemption" might be obvious to see but our interpretation of it might be skewed and "progress" sometimes leaves out the question "by which means"; the "to what end" will likely stay a mystery and I think that's a good thing.

As I see it purpose is something which cannot be known outside the mind* of the agency which performs the creative act which is completed by acting out its inherent purpose.

So if there is a purpose in the existence of humanity we cannot know it in the absence of the thought process(I have simplified this into thought process so as to continue my point, this could be described as "will") of the agency who put us here. Some religious people think they are privy to this purpose through revelation, let's put them to one side for now, along with the alternative perspective that there is no purpose at all.

Now in my enquiry into the purpose of our existence it has occured to me that there is a principle in the creative act which can be interpreted as a signature of the agent concerned. So effectively the purpose can be read in the creation like the stylistic brush strokes of an artist on their canvas. For example an art specialist can determine a Van Gogh by the form of the brush strokes independent of the subject of the painting. The movement of his arm, the way his brain/mind to hand coordination is somehow evident in the creation, as a signature.

So by analogy the artistic style of the agent responsible for our existence will be evident in us as a signature. If not specifically the signature of that particular agent, then the signature of the agent who created that agent. All that is required to determine the nature and get a hand on the purpose of the agent is to learn to read the signature.

Secondly if we are inquiring into the purpose of the entirety of the existence we find ourselves in, then it may be the case that every subjective and objective form in this world is a signifyer of the purpose if one is able to accurately read it.

Following this approach I have extrapolated that the purpose of our being brought into existence is primarily(this is grossly simplified) to carry on the evolutionary development of living entities to the point at which they become independently existing entities. Independent in the entirety of their world. So they would independently generate and maintain their own physical existence and world. Something which we cannot do and are barely learning to understand through trying to survive on a limited and vulnerable planet.

* by mind, I am referring to one's existential being rather than one's thinking intellectual mind.

Abrahamic religions all see the world as "fallen" because of sin, and that we must "escape" and leave behind this problematic world and obtain salvation in Heaven with Yahweh. ... It's not about redeeming the world, it's about escaping the world, solving our problems, and seeking resolutions elsewhere. — darthbarracuda

Various gnostic religions sought to escape the world altogether, but Christianity is surely aimed at redeeming the world; the sacrifice of Jesus was made solely for that end. I'm not saying you should believe it, but don't misrepresent it.

Sorry, I must have sent that without finishing. Those were good quotes. The one about following a story about our relation to the world seemed most relevant because essentially our reasons we give ourselves for continuing our individual selves and perpetuating future beings, when not defaulted to unthinking actions, usually end up being the things I mentioned in the OP. One of my themes is that philosophizing on the reasons for procreation also forces us to confront our own and our species purpose. The "temptation to exist" as E.M Cioran wrote. So I start out by proposing some popular candidates for an existential purpose (scientific discovery, entertainment, relationships, etc.). My latest candidate for reflection is redemption, a popular one for the religious minded. So then I take the proposed purpose to its logical end. So we exist to do X to do X to do X until it becomes an absurdity due to its instrumental nature. We redeem to redeem to redeem.. but why? I am saying under all the X purpose is simply the will-to-live- the individual's desire for more existence. However, existence is not edifying in itself- it is simply the platform to survive and entertain ourselves, so we can survive and entertain ourselves so we can survive and entertain ourselves and oh, here we are presented with the idea of instrumentality.

But apparently you can't save people if they never exist. So the whole process of saving people becomes important in-itself. Christian morality has the tendency then to see life as machine of goodness. The more people there are, the more people need saving, and saving is good. It is apparently a good thing to put people into a shitty situation in order to help get them out of the situation you put them in. It certainly feels good to help people... This is quite obviously "slave-like", in that the objectively shitty conditions of the "slaves" are twisted around to be seen as something to be cherished. A classic example of a coping mechanism - when no alternatives are apparent, twist reality to be more suitable to your tastes. However it seems pretty obvious to me that if they had an alternative to enduring a life of suffering, most would take it. If there was a way to get to Heaven without the help of Jesus, we'd all take it. But, alas, there isn't another way into Heaven - or so we are told. — darthbarracuda

Yes, I agree with this assessment- to redeem to redeem to redeem does not make sense. Redeem for what? The purpose is obliterated once it is taken to its logical conclusion.

But in my opinion, "meaning" in the existential sense of purpose and justice is an imperfect coping mechanism; a hodge-podge method of ESCAPING (again! :( ) our condition by establishing a reason why things are happening the way they are and what our position is in the going-ons; a way of REASSURING ourselves that we are important (SELF-ESTEEM). Any sort of existentialist philosophy must then be powerful enough to ACTUALLY WORK but simultaneously flexible enough to JUSTIFY ITSELF as an AUTHENTIC way of life (and not just a coping mechanism). The absence of any such way leads one to extreme pessimism as panic, fear and meaninglessness solidify themselves, at least until one finds a suitable way to distract themselves. — darthbarracuda

Yes, the instrumentality and angst of existence becomes apparent without an anchor and thus distraction, and re-engagement with some sort of activity to take one's mind off existence itself is the only way out.

Also, we could wonder if it's necessarily a good thing to let everyone share equally in material wealth, even if the means of generating it aren't harmful to the environment anymore. If you just observe debates about providing people with a basic income in civil societies, not everyone is convinced that a "free lunch" would prove to be beneficial. — Gooseone

But my point is the vanity of existence itself becomes apparent even if everyone was "redeemed" (in whatever context that means). So for the secular humanist, if everyone was "redeemed" through social justice programs by having their basic needs/health care met. What then? Trying to find entertainment, social relations, goals of all varieties will abound but, when taken as a purpose in themselves will exhaust themselves into absurdity.. as it becomes apparent that we do X to do X to do X and that we really just see our striving nature. This is the idea of the instrumentality of existence and along with it the feeling of futility because there is no ultimate completion from any goal or action. It is that idea that there is nothing truly fulfilling. Time moves forward and we must make more goals and actions. Mere existence itself, though we want more of it is not satisfying in and of itself- hence we survive and then need goals simply due to this restless nature of existence.

So the desire for redeeming the world (charity, scientific advancement, enlightenment) is really instrumental in getting what seems to be the underlying case, the pure desire for more existence. — schopenhauer1

I remember the joke (which proves this point) of the blind man who goes begging to Jesus to give him his sight back. So Jesus performs the miracle. The man thanks Him, promises to devote his life to the Ministry, but soon after Jesus sees him running and chasing after women. So Jesus stops him in his tracks and asks him "What are you doing? I performed a miracle for you and gave you back your lost vision. Why do you behave like you did before having lost your vision in the first place?"... and the man answers "Yes I greatly appreciate what you have done for me, that's why I am doing the best thing there is to do with it!" >:O

Most religions and ethical culture groups (i.e. humanists), tend to think that part of our purpose here is to redeem the world. — schopenhauer1

Redeeming the world is different from personal redemption. I find that the latter is always prioritized and seen as a kind of prerequisite for the former.

kind of P.C. version — schopenhauer1

What?

Why do people need to be born into the world in order to redeem it? — schopenhauer1

Why indeed! This is a very important question. I would say that they quite clearly don't, and I think many religions would actually agree, if you read between the lines.

Do you expect god to exist and pat you on the back when doing "good" and dictate your next task?
There is no "existential" fulfilment to be had nor any common purpose which can be relayed for everyone to see. The "struggle" which might appear as futility in the minds of some will make it so that perfection is not attainable and therefore there will always be a goal.

To be free from the desire to exist free of such forced goals would probably mean to exist in a manner in which meaning is impossible or exist governed by absolute vanity. I do not see it as vanity to fall asleep with a sense of accomplishment in having tried to adhere to the highest values which one was able to conceive / perceive, the risk of great err in doing so is what gives live it's intensity and contributes to giving it meaning.

So the desire for redeeming the world (charity, scientific advancement, enlightenment) is really instrumental in getting what seems to be the underlying case, the pure desire for more existence. — schopenhauer1

Doesn't it make more sense to see the 'underlying case' in evolutionary terms though?

Because biologically speaking, what makes us continue to exist is not a desire to live, our bodies just do it when provided with what it needs. And it doesn't get what it needs by us desiring to continue to live per se, rather we have separate individual ends/desires which overall produce the outcome of continued life, but each one is a specific end in itself. As in, we don't eat, drink water, find shelter because we want to continue to exist. Rather, we continue to exist because we want to eat, drink water, find shelter. That we continue to exist as a result of this is kind of accidental. A side effect.

At the gene level there's no desire for continue existence. It's just those genes that code for proteins which increase the chance (in some way) of that gene getting copied, are the gene copies we are more likely to see in the next generation. And those genes that don't reproduce themselves, don't. It appears as if the goal of a gene is to reproduce to itself, but in reality there is no teleos.

I sympathize with Schophenaur (although I'm not scholar), but I suspect that there's merely the illusion of will, rather than a genuine will. In the same way evolution appears to have a teleos, but it's just an appearance. Think of it like natural selection for 'willing'. Things which don't strive for more existence, don't continue into the future, whereas those that do, do.

Quite, we are biological organisms which persist over time simply because we have chemical systems for replication and extending lifespan(to the scale of a human lifespan). Any different, or other kind of configuration of chemicals which doesn't achieve this disappeared, died out eons ago, they failed to persist. Except that is for chemical states which naturally persist through being chemically at rest, such as elemental gases, liquids and solids.

It is survival of the persistent and a purpose can be imagined in this, but there is none as such other than what is chemically built into the systems themselves by some kind of chemical evolution.

I sympathize with Schophenaur (although I'm not scholar), but I suspect that there's merely the illusion of will, rather than a genuine will. In the same way evolution appears to have a teleos, but it's just an appearance. Think of it like natural selection for 'willing'. Things which don't strive for more existence, don't continue into the future, whereas those that do, do. — dukkha

I think Schop kind of sees it both ways. Will is unconsciously moving us forward (genetics, survival instincts), and Will also consciously moves us forward (boredom drives us to make goals great and small). So it seems both can be tied to Will proper. @Thorongil usually, has some interesting things to say about this. So in a way, even though Schop did not grasp full blown evolution, he anticipated a kind of process that blindly moves forward but sustains the species in the process. Also, Schopenhauer's Will is explicitly "blind". There is no telos in it. Will's own nature is simply to "strive-for-nothing" in particular. Now, this is clearly different than evolution on its own which is simply the process of genetics being selected for and happy accidents then become niche adaptations, but I think we can analogize it to the universal expansion of energy from the Big Bang in a way- energy and matter, constrained by its own set arbitrary initial conditions blindly moving forward via the interplay of its necessary constraints and contingent interplay of environment.

We must recognize now that as far as we know, we are the only species that recognizes the origins of new life, that can reflect upon life itself- its very process, what it means, and can choose to procreate or not procreate at our own desiring and will. That makes a difference in terms of Will being completely unconscious and working through pure mechanism versus working through our self-reflected ends. So then I ask, what is it about our species that we keep putting more people into the world if we can reflect upon procreation itself, and even choose to stop the process. All the X reasons that are used when self-reflected upon (in other words not just "accidents" which themselves could have been avoided easily), are absurd when taken as reasons in and of themselves. I just chose "redemption" because that answer is a great example of what does not even need to occur in the first place if humans were not born. Redemption does not need to take place if there is no one to exist who needs redeeming. So what is it about the human project, that it has to be carried forth? What are we doing here that we need to be here? And again, if you answer that with any X reason, that reason can be taken to its logical end where it becomes an absurdity because it becomes circular logic.

What are we doing here that we need to be here? And again, if you answer that with any X reason, that reason can be taken to its logical end where it becomes an absurdity because it becomes circular logic. — schopenhauer1

It only becomes circular if you never apply it to how it might be relevant for you in the current moment.

Though I have no formal proof for the following whatsoever aside from my own practical reality and maybe the realities of others who are willing to apply this principle on their daily lives, it goes a bit like this: Suffering can be seen as a constraint on the self determination we feel / think we're endowed with. We are not totally free and we can easily accept certain constraints without suffering, we don't blame gravity for preventing us from jumping higher and, though we were forced to build shelters from environmental circumstances, we don't (always) blame the weather for existing and constraining our possibilities. We have laws which punish those who physically constrain our movement and, to a degree, those who constrain us abstractly (extortion for example). Social coercion becomes a difficult subject yet in most Western societies I think it's fair to assume that we are willing to comply with a degree of social constraint for the sake of gaining the ability to exercise our own perceived self determination outside of this social constraint. A lack of clear purpose can be seen as a constraint imposed by the inherent characteristics of life which starts to feel as violation of our self determination.

If we are merely theorizing abstractly about purpose it can become an intellectual exercise which ends in circular logic because the actual relevance is negated. To me it is odd how existing for the sake of developing existence can be seen as "insufficient" while, the other way round, this very observation can be the cause of suffering... which I see as having a lack of purpose / feeling constrained. It's the very evolution which doesn't appear to suffice as a good enough purpose which made us able to become conscious enough to pose such questions and the very lack of finding a good enough answer to the questions we pose forces us (to a degree) to develop further (like trying to find out how things might work on some deeper level). Rationally this is indeed circular logic because there is no end to it but physically we cannot escape moving "forward" even while having no clear goal in advance.

If you look at evolution as a process which passes on information in ever more elaborate ways, procreation is the passing of information through genes while we can currently pass on information way faster through communicating directly. Much like how simpler organisms can share genes instantly, if we don't "apply" the information we've shared it never becomes functional and such a lack of functionality can be perceived as a "meaningless existence". Again I am only stating how this applies to myself and, in that regard, I see a lot of what mankind is doing as quite futile and dysfunctional. A blatant lack in the feedback I get from my own environment makes me feel without having any function / meaningless. Simply procreating doesn't seem enticing (for longer durations), most talk appears to be a simple sharing of some non-investigated value judgements, most entertainment appears to be a mechanism to prevent people from ever coming to terms with reality (where the degree with which people try to avoid making certain conclusions makes me conclude this is indeed a (sociocultural) reality), and a lot of philosophy / science seems like some sort of semantic exercise which makes people feel in control of themselves and their environment.

I don't give a sh#t that there might not be a grand purpose behind things which can function as entertainment for the intellectually endowed, I have become conscious of my environment in a certain way and now this very environment feels like a constraint because I seem to be unable to pass on information which is relevant to 'me'. It brings little relieve for me to figure that I am just susceptible to some natural evolutionary mechanism and even gaining the objective knowledge of some overarching goal would be meaningless if I could not use it to evoke a response from my environment which I could then perceive as constructive feedback.

Okay, well, apologies for the rant-like post but a distinct lack towards adhering to what you might perceive as "paradoxical and absurd" feels quite detrimental in my experience, because I can't shake that feeling I'm taking this "goal" seriously and, in doing so, am attempting to communicate how I see things. The nice thing about it is that, if anyone here can easily shoot down everything I'm saying, I've gained some constructive feedback and that would aid in what I would consider "meaningful development". Personal engagement can make the difference between doing an intellectual exercise and intellectually exploring the environment, they can both be meaningful but if it's not clear which of the two we're engaging in there can be some unnecessary confusion.

The nice thing about it is that, if anyone here can easily shoot down everything I'm saying, I've gained some constructive feedback and that would aid in what I would consider "meaningful development". Personal engagement can make the difference between doing an intellectual exercise and intellectually exploring the environment, they can both be meaningful but if it's not clear which of the two we're engaging in there can be some unnecessary confusion. — Gooseone

I'm trying to get a clear understanding of your views and I'm having a hard time piecing it together. It sounds like you are resenting the fact that your environment (i.e. society?) does not give you proper avenues for exploring the environment and constructive feedback. I am not sure what that might mean. The one thing you proposed that seemed to be something of an argument was that learning things on a "deeper level" is what truly matters and thus, the absurdity of an overarching X purpose is a constraint that forces us to simply look at life more deeply simply because, well we exist, and have the investigative abilities to do so, so why not? So are you saying we are here to investigate, and when you are disconnected from investigating, you feel a sense of despair?

My apologies, it's a bit hard to explain and some of it is quite new for me still and my view is quite wide ranging where certain things don't make sense if a particular thing is overlooked, I'll try again.

It might appear unfulfilling or a form of circular logic to state that "we evolve for the sake of evolving" or "develop to become better at developing" but the way my own experience can be deemed "consonant" or "dissonant" follows closely in adhering to this principle where a lack of development can be seen as a form of suffering and developing is generally a consonant experience.

I feel it's justified to use my own subjective experience as an objective criteria here, partially because it's well, unavoidable, but also because our subjective experience might be susceptible to the same evolutionary principles which have formed us as a physical species. It might again sound as circular logic or just too obvious to even mention but we have legs to walk on and we have brains to think with. Our legs were used in a different way in the past but evolutionary pressures gave us a new functionality with bipedalism and our brains started out as some sort of central control unit which gained the functionality of abstract thought. I gave the example of physical coercion vs abstract coercion to hint at the observation that the abstract / sociocultural plane is a big part of the environment we (functionally) live in and respond to.

So basically, if someone ties my legs together I can't walk any more and this detracts from my functionality and makes me suffer, this is how I equate suffering with a constraint on my self determination where the level of self determination is highly correlated with our functionality. I gave the example of my own experience of my situation to try and show that, not being able to use one's own thoughts functionally can cause a similar sort of suffering / constraint on self determination as an obvious physical constraint.

I've entered a very vague area here because it's quite easy to state that our thoughts might be merely there to attract mates and to make us able to manipulate our environment so that procreation is easier. I hope the observation you yourself made in assessing that we could wilfully stop procreating, my observation that we have gained new functionality in being able to pass on information in new ways, and the way in how certain questions we are able to pose can have a direct effect on our physical well-being suffice in showing that we've moved passed a point where we can explain our behaviour using only physical traits as a heuristic.

Also, "functional" development is highly subjective, we can try and gain material wealth, construct and elaborate our self image, we can increase knowledge which can be directly applied to manipulate our environment in a "better" way (technological science being more practical then say cosmology) but we can also try to raise our own awareness / consciousness. The latter sounds more esoteric then it actually is; if we ask ourselves what certain things "mean" to us (like being excluded by some of our peers) we can become aware of our own tendencies (which would be preferring to belong to a group in this case). So, using this example, someone who does not inquire into the meaning of what has occurred (exclusion by peers) might try to adjust it's behaviour to belong, seek another group to belong to, convince themselves the group is useless or simply suffer from exclusion. Someone inquiring towards the deeper meaning might be able to increase their functionality in being able to resist automatic tendencies where this functionality could be equated with an increase in self awareness.

To state one point again, taking away someone's material wealth, receiving an intellectual "blow" which detracts from one's self image or not being met on a similar level of awareness (I know that sounds arrogant) all detract from perceived functionality and create suffering via constraining self-determination.

So in essence, people might be talking in this thread here for reasons which are so different (and I might have missed a few) that we're effectively not even talking about the same subject, they all share a common goal though and that is in increasing functionality. Some might be posting here as a mere distraction / for entertainment and I see that as a coping mechanism which functions to detract from the suffering created by a lack of functionality. In my mind there's just no escaping from evolving for the sake of evolving and I have taken your assessment concerning purpose as a hint that you have been trying to raise your awareness where you are now confronted with a lack in functionality.

I guess what I'm saying here is that the very reason you made this thread is because you could not help but comply to evolutionary tendencies, yet the functionality might be a bit illusive.

To some extent it can be comforting to see "developing for the sake of developing" as a means 'and' an end at the same time, especially if you can relate it directly to your current experience, yet it might cause suffering if one is not able to share such an insight as actual information with others. I am trying to point to a mechanism here, it's not either "this" or "that" and this complicates sharing information coherently. The very self awareness / consciousness which enables us to pose question about purpose can easily become / be seen as a futile exercise if we can't do much with it and I have little clues if this functionality should be gained through becoming more capable in articulating it better or through expecting others to put in more effort to understand it... For now I blame myself in not being able to articulate properly.

(I could try and elaborate on why it might be beneficial (evolutionary) to raise our common awareness, this would be based on insights I gained from the "thermodynamical imperative" thread by apokrisis on the old philosophy forums, but I have a hunch I have not been able to articulate / share my thoughts properly already so I'll refrain from complicating things further. What I am trying to say might not appear to make sense but if anyone would be willing to contemplate what "purpose" as a subject means to them personally, I hope I'll be forgiven for incorporating my subjective hunches.)

I'm not sure man. What I do know is that there are people who either happen to have a pretty lucky life and they see themselves as having their needs and wants satisfied. Their outlooks are optimistic, life should be lived. This is the majority. On the other side is the pessimist. Reviled for their inability to get aboard and voicing their view about it. They perpetually question underlying conditions, whether satisfaction is lasting, what is it we are trying to perpetuate. These questions of existential level are usually rejected for not just getting on with things.

Redeeming the world is different from personal redemption. I find that the latter is always prioritized and seen as a kind of prerequisite for the former. — Thorongil

I would say this could be emphasized more as a grounding context for understanding this topic, that ultimately the act of redeeming the world takes place form a first person point of view and is about the awareness of suffering in the world (one's own suffering) and what one needs to do in order to overcome it or come to terms with it psychologically.

The Crucifixon has been said to represent "a voluntary participation in the sorrows of the world" (Joseph Campbell). Instead of escaping the world, redemption is about the individual voluntary meeting his fears in an exercise of existential overcoming, true learning, that he may ascend to new being.

So then I ask, what is it about our species that we keep putting more people into the world if we can reflect upon procreation itself, and even choose to stop the process. All the X reasons that are used when self-reflected upon (in other words not just "accidents" which themselves could have been avoided easily), are absurd when taken as reasons in and of themselves. I just chose "redemption" because that answer is a great example of what does not even need to occur in the first place if humans were not born. Redemption does not need to take place if there is no one to exist who needs redeeming. So what is it about the human project, that it has to be carried forth? What are we doing here that we need to be here? And again, if you answer that with any X reason, that reason can be taken to its logical end where it becomes an absurdity because it becomes circular logic. — schopenhauer1

No argument here. I'm never having children either, life is full of suffering and it would br immoral to inflict it upon someone who can't consent, and whose only escape if he doesn't appreciate the 'gift' is to violently, lethally harm his body until he's dead, causing suffering for everyone around who cares about him.

Personally, I used to care about antinatalism a lot. I believed there was a great moral imperative to prevent babies from being brought into the world. What could more important than to bring about the cessation of suffering entirely? What an opportunity this generation has, to completely end all human suffering, and the only thing we need do is choose not to do something. But I just don't care about it as much anymore. It's not my suffering that's being created, it really doesn't affect me at all. Other people will always choose to breed, there's really no stopping it (unless you invent some biological weapon which sterilizes the entire world), and it seems most people born basically delude themselves into thinking life's great and they weren't harmed by birth. Does it really matter that much if the are born? They themselves don't even think they were harmed, so why even care that they actually were?

Why actually care about the hypothetical suffering of non-existent babies? Would your life actually improve in any way if you convinced people not to breed?

Why actually care about the hypothetical suffering of non-existent babies? Would your life actually improve in any way if you convinced people not to breed? — dukkha

The actual outcome of antinatalism really has no great significance. It is rather the symbolic implication of what procreation stands for. Procreation stands for purpose. Putting forth more humans is the very reason why one exists in the first place. Here's the thing, questioning why people are put forth in the first place, gets to the heart of the matter more than anything else, as to why we ourselves, the already existing are here. What we are doing here, what we need to be doing here, what's the point, what's the end, why the striving, why the surviving, why are we going through all the obstacles, harms, angst, boredom, and the like? Procreation is not about procreation necessarily, but about us and our reason for doing anything.

You're sort of getting it, people might be acting very different but in essence they're all trying to develop in some manner, be it procreation, living the good life as best as they can, doubting everything (looking at people living the good life as a specific source of information), etc.

Life as a principle tries to keep it's own entropy low and needs to expend energy to do so, most animals only eat food, some animals work in groups to increase their means to get to a food source, and we humans not only eat but expand energy for the sake of it on a grand scale and we pass on the information of how to do so. Money can be seen as a right to expend resources / energy and and we can even put other humans to work for us if there is an abundance. Money is a social construction and it enabled us to be able to store energy in a very efficient way, mostly due to the way we all mentally agree on what money is, it has no actual physical existence but it's very physically potent, to a degree we feel we need it to buy our freedom and, on a grander scale, some appear to have so much of it we start to see it as a constraint on our own self-determination.

It 'has' enabled us to explore other avenues easier (by enabling us to trade specific functionality / expertise for the freedom of gathering all our resources ourselves directly) and along with a novel degree of cooperation we've become able to extract energy more efficiently (from coal to atomic power,etc). The average human now has a specific energy footprint which is wholly made possible by the ease with which we have access to energy. Controlling our environment, putting in more resource hogs, extracting new information out the environment, it can all be seen as either striving to use up more energy or using information to become better at it (I would consider sharing information as "using" information).

Having shelter in which entropy can be kept low (a house with heating), ease of transport (being able to use the equivalent of many horses at will to get somewhere), easy waste disposal, access to "processed" foods, etc; these are quite novel but a distinct lack of them could, once accustomed to them, be seen as constraint on self determination. People will rally and make efforts to gain them and failure in doing so will be seen as a form of suffering unless the individual goals are adjusted.

Some might ask where this is going (not only existential questioning but also questions about the morality of capitalism, etc) yet those who have the prospect of becoming able to use more energy per capita (upcoming economies) generally have a very clear purpose. I have a Syrian refugee as a neighbour and he is dumbfounded why families are so small here (the Netherlands), he's boasting about his three kids which are incoming and how he plans to make a lot more. He, and others, might be convinced there's some ideology concerning family life but it's probably more honest to see large families as a necessity to increase access to resources; as soon as material wealth and the use of money are more efficient in gaining such access, the need for large families will slowly diminish.

The way any individual feels good or bad can be correlated with their access to physical resources, the ability to gain abstract information and the ability to use /pass such information. Overall the interplay in all this will make mankind evolve further and we're bound to increase our ability to expend more energy on the long haul if we survive (where it could be noted that increased control of our environment in the sense of predicting asteroid impacts, climate change, access to easily expandable resources, etc. falls under the category of using information to become better at extracting resources from our environment).

On an individual level we can see this principle at work because most people aren't happy with just the food they need to keep themselves alive. This is where the "freedom to functionally develop" comes in. We are consciously aware of our environment on an abstract level and the same mechanism which causes physical suffering (constraints on functional freedom) can also cause mental suffering. The degree to which we're conscious is related to the degree we can extract information out of our environment (we can manipulate people mentally, we can use physics equations to extract atomic energy, etc.) The main goal always seems to be to be able to increase entropy overall by becoming better at extracting resources from our environment (information can be seen as an abstract resource) to keep our own entropy low. I see increased self-awareness as the ability to become aware of our own previously automatic behaviours (bias) and this can also be seen as an increase in the capacity to use information functionally. I gave my own example merely to show that a lack of functionality (most people appear to behave quite automatically to my mind and don't seem to respond to what I see as information) can be regarded as a constraint on freedom which causes suffering because it makes it seem to me that I'm unable to adhere to the grander goal of becoming more efficient in using resources to keep entropy low. For others this might translate into feeling a "slave to the system" while another person might be developing to it's utmost satisfaction by using capitalism to it's full extent and again some others might have convinced themselves they're developing properly because they adhere to the rules which were dictated to them (religion). Even Buddhism follows this principle because Buddhists appear to follow the rules which will, eventually, make them able to escape their karmic wheel of reincarnation. Aside from religion providing a "path to follow", it can also been seen as a (false) sense of control of the environment.

It might also be noted that with the advent of our ability to digitize information, we've created a new abstract environment in which the same principles of functional development apply (I say abstract because we all need a machine to translate this "dumb" digital information into something which is intelligible to us). We use the internet to gain access to physical resources, to gain information and to use / pass information and overall, we're becoming better at it ...because of it. The internet started out as a means for scientists to be able to share their research results more efficiently, functional development again... Even using the internet, television, radio as a leisure past time can be regarded as "just enough functional development (gaining information) to prevent noticing an explicit lack of development" (boredom). If you look at the most "positive" end of the emotional spectrum, what is a characteristic of a celebration? 'I' would assume it's merely using up as much resources as we can, because we can. (Good thing there's usually alcohol to prevent us from noticing we're using up resources for the sake of using up resources).

A desire for freedom, increasing knowledge, seeking to belong, procreate, being / becoming able to process information, could all be seen as an innate desire to increase functionality and this functionality could easily be seen as becoming better at keeping entropy low locally and, by doing so, we adhere to the second law of thermodynamics because we increase overall entropy by doing this. Just as death seems to have the function of forcing us to try to escape death for as long as possible, so does the second law of thermodynamics enable us to try and escape it for as long as possible. It might seem futile but even this feeling of futility is a testament that we cannot help but try to adhere to the principles we try to escape. In my mind, feelings of despair / futility are not caused by a failure to fully escape such absurd principles but rather a failure in adhering to these absurd principles. I have been merely trying to explain the purpose of feeling / observing there's no purpose to it all.

Again apologies for the long winded posts and the inability to articulate properly.

Reviled for their inability to get aboard and voicing their view about it. They perpetually question underlying conditions, whether satisfaction is lasting, what is it we are trying to perpetuate. These questions of existential level are usually rejected for not just getting on with things. — schopenhauer1

As a relatively "lucky" person on the optimistic side of things, it's not that we revile you or your views. It's rather that we're wanting to help you be happy.

The actual outcome of antinatalism really has no great significance. It is rather the symbolic implication of what procreation stands for. — schopenhauer1

Whaaaa? The most common motivation for antinatalism is that life isn't worth it due to an unreasonable amount of suffering. The goal of antinatalism is to minimize this suffering, because suffering is bad and what is bad is what ought to be removed, eliminated, or prevented, like a cancerous tumor.

Other motivations for antinatalism are far too poetic and reserved to be taken seriously in light of what suffering is actually like.

Procreation is not about procreation necessarily, but about us and our reason for doing anything. — schopenhauer1

Indeed, it is how we achieve immortality, or the next-best alternative at least. Socrates or Plato (can't remember) understood this, so did Mainlander when he criticized Schopenhauer.

Whaaaa? The most common motivation for antinatalism is that life isn't worth it due to an unreasonable amount of suffering. The goal of antinatalism is to minimize this suffering, because suffering is bad and what is bad is what ought to be removed, eliminated, or prevented, like a cancerous tumor.

Other motivations for antinatalism are far too poetic and reserved to be taken seriously in light of what suffering is actually like. — darthbarracuda

Well, my point was that the outcome of antinatalism is not going to be realized anytime soon, but the questioning process itself can spark people to ask themselves why they are putting more people into existence in the first place, especially noting all the harm-whether Buddhist version or classical view of negative experiences. It makes people question the point of the human project- what are we trying to achieve other than simply continuing to continue, striving to strive, making more people with experiences to experience. The absurdity of any X reason becomes apparent with the circular logic.

Personally I would attack the notion that the purpose of human life is the achieve happiness. Happiness is one of the most insidious myths of modern society.

Well, my point was that the outcome of antinatalism is not going to be realized anytime soon — schopenhauer1

Not with that attitude. Though I suppose we are pessimists.

Any definition has to based on the available facts. The process of defining the purpose of life has to start with most basic facts available to us. The only definite facts available to us are that I am, and I like to be happy. All other facts can be questioned.

The next step is what can make me happy? Our mind is an ocean of desires, with cross currents. I want to eat when I am hungry. But at the same time I see that my child is hungry, and there is very little food available. I choose to give it to my child. Life is full of such conflicts between gratification and self-giving desires. Making correct decisions causes the least amount pain for me. Spur of the moment emotions make us take wrong decisions. To follow my integrated mind gains me the most. This builds our character. Our character decides whether we move to greener pastures or dry land. An angry person creates an angry world for himself, and the world created by a caring person cares for him.

Following my integrated mind (calm heart) seems to the only purpose of life.