Well, I've been spewing, what seems now as, half-baked ideas about human purpose. I was under the impression, not without cause, that each and everyone must have the one and same purpose. I even have a thread titled "human teleology, the meaning of life".

To think that way, believing everyone should have the exact same purpose, is like believing that in the great book of life, everyone should be the hero that slays the dragon and gets the princess. What about the faithful sidekick, the villain hatching evil plots, the well-meaning bumbling klutz, the other woman, and so on?

I view this general tendency to think that everyone must aim at one single target as a byproduct of self-love which makes us think that what we personally value either is or should be universally appreciated. If human history is to be a story worth telling it must reflect the immense diversity in roles each individual may assume, revealing, as it were, the immense complexity of being human, and not be the mind-numbingly dull narrative of 6 billion people, all of them, saving damsels from dragons.

In the end then existentialism is true - each person must find his own purpose, his own role, in life.

It feels good to be perceived as being intelligent and is there any greater pursuit of intelligence than to state humanity's purpose? — Rand

This may help some:

This may help some — 3017amen

This is GREAT. Thanks!

I view this general tendency to think that everyone must aim at one single target as a byproduct of self-love which makes us think that what we personally value either is or should be universally appreciated. — TheMadFool

I would like to challenge that statement. Could the general tendency that everyone must aim at one single target be rather because our understanding of morality has been corrupted? Corrupted in the sense that we've learned to treat people the same way, whether they're known or unknown to us? Morally, it's significant whether we know or don't know a person when we factor into our decision making process our relationship with them. We're human and we're fallible beings. And in our modern, anonymous society when we let someone down we feel the same amount of guilt for a stranger that we would feel for a well known acquaintance, which I believe is totally unsustainable. Conceptually, we're turning ourselves into all powerful gods if we think we have the power to cope with that amount of guilt. Could it be that making everyone's aim the same may be a way of failing to minimize our guilt?

Subsequently, existential philosophical discussions result in the erosion of will power with no associated benefits for gaining insight and emotion becomes the driving motivation for discussions instead of reason. — Rand

I don't think you read enough of those "existentialist" (please drop these pseudo-academic misonomers with the actual names of philosophers you are responding to) philosophers you are adamantly lampooning. Reason itself is just a type of emotion.

please drop these pseudo-academic misonomers with the actual names of philosophers you are responding to — BraydenS

In the sense that you're attempting to achieve it, I can't possibly think of any less academic setting than an anonymous online discussion. My goal is to test my theory with reasoning and I welcome the academic exchange of knowledge in its pursuit. But the false context for my inquiry that you're trying to create, by accusing me of using pseudo-academic misnomers, again reflects on the earlier thread I raised in this discussion about a corruption of morality, albeit in a different context than the one used in the earlier discussion. Such a corruption of morality results in false god complexes. But instead of confusing known and unknown experiences, you're obscuring the line between known and unknown knowledge hierarchies to avoid the reality that you don't know me. You need to own the fact that you don't know me or my reasoning for making this inquiry. And morally you don't need to have any guilt for the fact that you probably don't care about my reasoning.

Reason itself is just a type of emotion. — BraydenS

Or emotion is just a type of reason.

If the primary value of existentialism is authenticity and if it's primarily associated with 19th and 20th century European philosophers, then it fails. Cultural claims of the absurdness of values associated with western culture have increased since the 19th century. Existentialists failed to bridge the gap between their individual angst and the concrete human experience, which is partly attributed to abstract systematic or academic philosophies. Subsequently, existential philosophical discussions result in the erosion of will power with no associated benefits for gaining insight and emotion becomes the driving motivation for discussions instead of reason. It feels good to be perceived as being intelligent and is there any greater pursuit of intelligence than to state humanity's purpose? — Rand

Wasn't Rand a russian lady who came out of Communist Russia? Or is that someone else?

Interesting forum topic. I'll have to look up exactly what existentialism is. I can only make assumptions about what it is at this point.

If the primary value of existentialism is authenticity and if it's primarily associated with 19th and 20th century European philosophers, then it fails. Cultural claims of the absurdness of values associated with western culture have increased since the 19th century. Existentialists failed to bridge the gap between their individual angst and the concrete human experience, which is partly attributed to abstract systematic or academic philosophies. Subsequently, existential philosophical discussions result in the erosion of will power with no associated benefits for gaining insight and emotion becomes the driving motivation for discussions instead of reason. It feels good to be perceived as being intelligent and is there any greater pursuit of intelligence than to state humanity's purpose? — Rand

One thing i've found in our modern culture is the people who say "they're sheeple" or "i don't conform", for whatever reason always seem to be the people who blend in the best, and you can't tell their personality from everyone elses.

To be honest i try to conform as much as possible and if i disagree with someone out in public prior to a confrontation, i'll just try to blend in to avoid a confrontation. In the rare instance a controntation takes place i'll act normal, whatever normal means.

I think people should try to be themselves, but i don't think being ourselves is the only reason we are alive. Some conformity is absolutely neccesary to be a healthy and productive adult.

So in short, i agree with you.

In the sense that you're attempting to achieve it, I can't possibly think of any less academic setting than an anonymous online discussion. — Rand

It's just that the actual name, "existentialists", says nothing about what you are trying to convey, because the term is "pseudo-academic", or, more lengthily espoused, not even of use to a scholar. This conveys that you know little about this era of philosophy (this is the only thing I can get from this term, a time period), and argue against the "emotions" as a drive because they are not "reason" (only a person who has never read Nietzsche could say such things).

Or emotion is just a type of reason. — Rand

Entirely true, depending on how you define your terms.

i agree with you. — christian2017

Yes I think we're in agreement.

Wasn't Rand a russian lady who came out of Communist Russia? Or is that someone else — christian2017

On this forum I'd like to maintain my anonymity. There's a good and a bad side to everything, including a good side to false god complexes ;)

this is the only thing I can get from this term, a time period — BraydenS

That was really the point.

only a person who has never read Nietzsche could say such things — BraydenS

Nietsche perceived emotions as a response to change.

Change and "no change" are intermittent developmental periods in the self and society. We use emotion and reason intermittently, depending on whether we're responding to change or not. The self or society does not develop only along a gradient from the one to the other, from birth till death.

A glorification of the angst that resulted from Enlightenment overshadows the pathway to regain momentum between societal change or "no change" interactions. It's as if it were never going to be possible to adapt to the newfound understanding of morality. Existentialists made great gains when they questioned the definition of existing morality yet failed in the sense that they provided no pathways to alternatives. We're well into the 21st century and we're without a new understanding of morality; two centuries later!

We don't need a purpose for humanity from anyone. We need a definition of moral principles for everyone, to create our own purpose. The existentialists failed to recognize such a societal need and failed to create self awareness about the risks of their work, which could have pointed the way towards a future that is not only filled with bad but also good. Their failure is resulting in the loss of values in western culture that were hard earned, over many centuries.

[del] — Rand

would like to challenge that statement. Could the general tendency that everyone must aim at one single target be rather because our understanding of morality has been corrupted? Corrupted in the sense that we've learned to treat people the same way, whether they're known or unknown to us? Morally, it's significant whether we know or don't know a person when we factor into our decision making process our relationship with them. We're human and we're fallible beings. And in our modern, anonymous society when we let someone down we feel the same amount of guilt for a stranger that we would feel for a well known acquaintance, which I believe is totally unsustainable. Conceptually, we're turning ourselves into all powerful gods if we think we have the power to cope with that amount of guilt. Could it be that making everyone's aim the same may be a way of failing to minimize our guilt? — Rand

Are you suggesting that that everyone's life-goal should be the same is implicit in our belief that we should treat everyone the same and that failing in the latter evokes guilt in us, a guilt that makes us strive for the former?

That's a fine piece of thinking I must say and while there's a grain of truth in it, I don't fully agree. Firstly, treating everyone the same is about ensuring that if some of us desire a thing, none of us should be either favored or disfavored in our attempts to acquire it. It doesn't involve limiting the things we wish to acquire to one at all; we may desire to do or possess anything at all i.e. it's not necessary that we have the exact same goal.

and that failing in the latter evokes guilt in us — TheMadFool

Guilt - an emotion - is often created when there are two realities that are at such extremes in relation to one another that a person experiencing both realities makes sense of it by bridging the gap between the two extremes with unrealistic information, since they're incapable of doing it with realistic information. It's the way for a person to cope with an unknown, i.e. the understanding that links the two extremes. Guilt is not a bad thing, provided one doesn't get stuck in the unknown and never progress to the known, which is where I'm arguing the existentialists left us.

Earlier when I wrote about guilt, I started off -

And in our modern, anonymous society when we let someone down we feel the same amount of guilt for a stranger that we would feel for a well known acquaintance, which I believe is totally unsustainable. — Rand

So I was implying that when our integrity demands we treat a stranger with the same reverence that we treat someone whom we've had life experiences with, then we create two extremes that can't be linked with realistic reasoning. Instead we create, for example, a god complex to help us to cope with the two extremes, which is not based in reality. If we chose it, only a god complex will give us enough courage to approach our beloved, favourite family member and, for example, a serial killer stranger with the same moral integrity.

Are you suggesting that that everyone's life-goal should be the same — TheMadFool

I'm arguing that moral principles ARE the same regardless of the self's life goals. And morality dictates how we treat people but good moral principles could not dictate that we treat everyone the same. Good moral principles would dictate that we need a balanced approach between rational AND empirical reasoning, allowing for continuous progression between the known and unknown. We have to take experience into account with our moral reasoning to reduce feelings of guilt, for example, by acknowledging that we can't approach the serial killer stranger with the same moral integrity as a beloved, favourite family member that we spend most of our time with.

:up:

Guilt is not a bad thing, provided one doesn't get stuck in the unknown and never progress to the known, which is where I'm arguing the existentialists left us. — Rand

Perhaps, there is nothing there that can be known which regrettably leaves us, according to you, in a perpetual state of "guilt". Isn't that the whole point of existentialism - an absurdity we can't laugh at?

How about instead of trying to sound profound you just say what you mean?

How about instead of trying to sound profound you just say what you mean? — ISeeIDoIAm

:ok:

I didn't mean that, I came back to remove my comment but pointless now. I'm annoyed at something else and I was projecting, sorry for being an ass.

I wasn't sure what you meant is what I should've said.

i agree with you.
— christian2017

Yes I think we're in agreement.

Wasn't Rand a russian lady who came out of Communist Russia? Or is that someone else
— christian2017

On this forum I'd like to maintain my anonymity. There's a good and a bad side to everything, including a good side to false god complexes ;) — Rand

false god complexes? who has a false god complex? lol

which is where I'm arguing the existentialists left us. — Rand

Colin Wilson's New Existentialism is a far more positive approach.

who has a false god complex? lol — christian2017

LOL

Colin Wilson's New Existentialism — ZzzoneiroCosm

Great, thanks for pointing me in a positive direction.

We're well into the 21st century and we're without a new understanding of morality; two centuries later! — Rand

Again, only a person who never read Nietzsche could say such things. We already have a perfect understanding of morality, it's called the will to power, and it was created by genius "existentialists".

We don't need a purpose for humanity from anyone. We need a definition of moral principles for everyone, to create our own purpose. — Rand

Apparently you missed Nietzche's thus spoke zarathustra where he does exactly that? It's called "the overman".

Listen, just read Nietzsche. You'll thank me later.

If the primary value of existentialism is authenticity and if it's primarily associated with 19th and 20th century European philosophers, then it fails. — Rand

I don't think "authenticity" is the "primary value of existentialism." If one is going to herd such a large group of thinkers (who disagree with each other for the most part) into a corral, it should be something along the lines that the ideas of self, soul, and human nature are not starting points one can assume but are problematic and rife with contradiction.

The slow pace of a moral philosophy emerging in the wake of such considerations is not a flaw but a feature.

Great, thanks for pointing me in a positive direction. — Rand

In case you don't know Colin Wilson: He was famous briefly in the 1950s after writing The Outsider - an examination of the failures of existentialism. He wrote a series of books on these failures. He then offered an extremely positive path beyond in Introduction to the New Existentialism. It's the most concise introduction. He centers on Abraham Maslow's idea of peak and plateau experiences.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-new-Existentialism-Colin-Wilson/dp/B000NUOT0O

it's called the will to power — BraydenS

i agree that Nietzsche's concepts of will to power, master and slave, recurrence; and finally, the rational vs intuitive man, are the key components to practicing morality. But they're pieces that fit together into a whole and if people understood how they fit together then they would naturally gravitate towards judging all things without judging any people, which in my view is the essence of morality. Obviously, that's a grossly over simplified statement but useful for making my point that people are NOT good at practicing Enlightenment morality because it's perceived as being too complicated. Morality is not too complicated. It simply isn't fully understood yet and that's not because people are stupid. The definition of morality is still incomplete

Listen, just read Nietzsche. You'll thank me later. — BraydenS

I appreciate the comments you left on this post. You're absolutely right with your assumption that I haven't read Nietzsche and I need to. I needed someone to inspire me to do it and you've succeeded. From what I knew about Nietzsche before, I could have just killed the guy. Lol. And I'm not coming from a religious angle with my anger. I came from a place of ignorance.

I'll still be looking for more inspiration, in future, if that's ok. Lol

The slow pace of a moral philosophy emerging in the wake of such considerations is not a flaw but a feature. — Valentinus

I have a different opinion about this. When you have places in the world, for example, where private property rights are being abolished in favour of a "communal good," then morally we're going backwards. So that is an example that relates to human rights, in politics. But it's a phenomenon that seeps through every aspect of western culture, eroding away some very hard earned values that were developed over centuries. One can't destroy a culture in our pursuit of simplifying the practice of morality. Morality needs to adapt to the culture, not the other way around. It is entirely possible.

He centers on Abraham Maslow's idea of peak and plateau experiences. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sounds interesting.