Yeah, I'd agree with this. Thanks.

Hey, finally, a helpful post that adresses the op! Thanks dude. I'd have to agree with you, I did frame life as a continual unrewarding climb towards a destination, but
I suppose that isn't really accurate. You can learn to enjoy the ride.

Sorry, Man, no. I rarely see this happening. Except where people are unhappy or have a mental illness.

See what happening? People getting burned out? People feeling loss more than gain? That's all pretty basic human psychology if you ask me.

Still think you need to separate out those things you have described which are necessary for life to exist - food, water, shelter, air.

Why? Those things aren't seperate to my point. My point is that one needs to pursue things. Your "people I know have almost no interest in material things other than what is necessary" that you spoke of earlier, still have desires in life, right? They wake up to do things. They don't just sit on the ground and eat, sleep, and drink. They still have achievements. They still long for things, and experience loss in life.

Yeah, but my question was about how best to live one's life with the knowledge that things are bad either way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, to use a colloquialism. I don't think aging really solves that problem. I mean, I guess in a sense it does, but in that sense, death ultimately solves all your problems.

I'm not trying to be an asshole, I just really have had this thought that things are screwed no matter what lie heavy on my head recently. Maybe there isn't really a practical answer, since I'm really just bitching about how bad things are, which isn't always something that can be fixed.

Most of the men I have known like sex and pursue it enthusiastically. What they do not do is spend more and more time obtaining more and more sex. The amount of sex they want (and get) tends to reach a plateau and stay there. Why? Because enough is enough--literally

But they do still need to pursue more sex. They have sex once, then twice, then again, and again. Even if the time interval between instances of sex is the same, that doesn't change the fact that it is a process with no end. You don't reach a point where you say "I have had enough sex for life now, I have finally finished (no pun intended) once and for all."

Krishnamurti develops the ideas you have expressed rather well.

Thanks for the recommendation, I will check him out. Can you recommend me specifically which of his stuff I should get into?

You've lumped all these ideas in together and they are not necessarily connected at all. Perspective.

No, they are connected, because they are all things in life that people try to obtain. To clarify, not all people try to obtain all of the things on the list, but they are all common "objects" (for lack of a better term) of desire. I don't really see how them being "necessarily" connected comes into play. Like I said, the reason I "lumped all these ideas in together" is because they are all connected to the central idea of the post, that us humans desire things that are obtainable, and once we obtain them, desire more, and we are hurt if we lose them or never obtain them in the first place.

Many people I know have almost no interest in material things other than what is necessary. This is of course an inexact idea but that doesn't make it hard to live by.

I don't mean this personally, as it is probably on me since I am not the best communicator, but you seem to be missing the point of my post. Maybe it's because i use the word 'obtain' and that makes it appear i am refering to specifically obtaining material wealth, but by obtain I actually mean getting or being anything or any state of being at all. The same issue of having to work hard to only just enjoy where you are for a moment, ( whether that is a certain state of mind, a certain relationship, a certain amount of money, etc...) only to just be faced with another burning desire for another thing.

Hope I clarified things a bit.

I need to clarify that this is really more of an issue when one's base level of happiness is low, or when there's suffering involved. I'm aware that happines doesn't increase very much once one's basic needs are met, but that doen't really answer the question, "what to do now?"

To be alive is to desire, (there are obvious exceptions such as altered states of coniousness due to drugs, but these are generally temporary conditions) and to desire is to seek to obtain. The point i was trying to make in my post, is that it is seemingly impossible to reach any sort of peaceful equilibrium, since one is depressed that they can't obtain something, until they do, and then they set their sights on something equally difficult to obtain, thus continuing the cycle.

I don't really see how acknowledging that I'm unlikely to raise or lower my base level of happiness for very long is really an answer to my question, since that doesn't really help me determine how I'm going to manage the knowledge of this seemingly vicious cycle. If one is really just stuck with their poor genetics:

Subjective well-being might be largely determined by genetics; that is, happiness may be a heritable trait. — Wikipedia

Then it seems like this is pretty much only saying "those that are already happy will be happy, and those that are not will not." That doesn't really offer much guidance.

Thank you for your in depth analysis and striking insight into my post! I feel like I've had my mind read. This reply truly shows your depth of experience, intelligence, and readiness to embrace controversial issues. I always appreciate people like you, never willing to sacrifice truth or relevance for brevity.
You just earned a follow! Keep it up my man!

I mean no one cares if they don't prefer red heads or short guys, etc, so why do they cry racism?

This is what made me think we were talking about physical traits, not brains or moral character. Many guys choose women based entirely off of looks, not personality or morality.

Now that I've given it some more thought, I suppose it could be thought of as a form of racism to group all the people of a race as attractive based off common features, when you could just simply look for those attractive features in individuals.

I think I might have been a little to quick to jump into this one.

Here's the problem I have with this avenue of thinking. To 'discriminate' can mean "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things" but it can also mean "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."

To be able to say something is "racist" one has to be acknowledging the existence of different races. (If I'm misrepresenting what you define as race, please, inform me.) When you define a race, you are admitting different features, such as differing levels of melanin in one's skin, different average height, weight, body shapes, and a different ethnic history.

So I would have to agree with you that it's "racist" to be attracted based on false stereotypes such as intelligence, behavior, etc., since these are what would entail normal bigoted beliefs.

But what if someone likes taller dudes? That person is less likely to be into asians. If they motice this recurring pattern, and decide they're more attracted to blacks than asians, does this make them "racist"? Some guys are only attracted to "thick" women, and in this case, they are a lot less likely to be attracted to asian women than many other ethnic groups.

So my point is, that it isn't racist to hold subconcious "value judgements" about different features that one race has more of than another, and then to conciously and verbally make the observation. If one refused a tall or thick attractive asian man or woman based off said observation, then that would be racism.

Hey thanks for the reply. That's what I've always heard, start learning about Nietzsche before you actually read any of his stuff. I wanted to read birth of tragedy, but I wasn't sure if that was a good place to start. I think I'll get into the greek tragedies first , and then wade into Nietzsche. Thanks for the advice. Cheers.

Hi Nagel, you seem to have a decent grasp on Nietzsche, (as much as anyone can) can you recommend me a good starting place for someone trying to get into Nietzsche? I've been wanting to for a while, I just don't know where to start.

If your case against me depends on the ludicrous claim that 'for all we know' being morally perfect may well involve being a sadist or wholly unconcerned for the welfare of others, then you've failed to touch it. YOu might as well just say - as you know doubt do when any case escapes your understanding and seems to be leading to conclusions you dislike - "how do we know anything".

I wasn't being that skeptical about it. I agree that we can vaguely understand morality without being able to act it out. I just think something like GOD is probably going to be too far out of reach for us to attempt to predict his actions. I have to admit, I didn't word that as well as I could.

And as our reason is the means by which God communicates his own attitudes towards such matters to us, we now know that God has done this to us.

This is where i fundamentally disagree with your whole argument. I don't think you have any basis to believe this. I'm not just trying to be agnostic, however, maybe there's just something I'm missing here. I'm not trying to claim that we can't know anything about God or morality, I'm just saying that when you say "God does this in this manner" it seems impossible to say that with really any understanding. It doesn't make sense to say "God would never put innocent people with dangerous people, because I wouldn't do that and I understand morality." You act like I'm stupid and don't know anything when I say "God could put innocent people with dangerous, corrupt people, because his understanding or his morality is perfect and your's is not" but then you turn around and say

No, I don't see why one would expect it to be clear that we are being punished, or clear why. Ignorance of why exactly we are here is plausibly part of the punishment. — Bartricks

So when you claim ignorance, it's suddenly a valid position.

Wrong. I was saying that we can't know what God would do. If we are not good, and God is perfectly good, drawing conclusions about "what God would do" seems unreasonable.

It doesn't make any sense? But which premise do you deny?

That makes no sense at all. — Bartricks

Hey, try not to play the "idiot's veto," okay?

Well, I must say that your name is well chosen. You seem to be going out of your way not to get things.

No. I'm going out of my way to get things. Just not without skepticism. You really seem to think that you can just post a controversial piece, and then be blown away every time someone challenges you.

↪litewave I don't think you understand arguments. I provided a proof. You haven't challenged a premise

↪Wayfarer I don't think you know what an 'answer' is

Yes. Everyone on this philosophy forum is unaware of basic things, like an argument, or an answer, because they challenge your beliefs. You're like a Baptist kid who goes to a Catholic school and is just AMAZED that other people have different ideas.

↪litewave
But which country has a justice system where the prisoner is denied knowledge of what he has been condemned for, even for the sake of causing him additional suffering by this ignorance?
— litewave

It's called 'The World'. You're living in it. See my case for details

.

Yeah. Because the entire planet is one country. Try to keep your head in reality, you snobbish ad hominem-slinging armchair philosopher.

The claim that "this object has a purpose" is ambiguous between "this object has ends it is trying to pursue" and "this object has been created for an end".

This is the problem with this whole argument. You are defining the question "What's the point of life?" as a question that assumes that life is created. As you yourself said: "So, those who ask "what is the purpose of us being here?" already assume a divine purpose." A lot of people are "wondering about our own ends" when we ask that question. Many people don't want a predetermined purpose. Many attempt to create their own purpose. I am aware you disagree with this view, but you don't invalidate it by simply defining the question in a different way than it is often meant.

And then there is always the question "why should I follow that purpose?" If somebody else creates a sentient creature with a certain purpose, it seems inevitable that the creature and creator will disagree on "ends." My point here is that I don't see how the creator is really determining the creation's purpose/s at that point. That would be more like failure to determine the creature's purpose.

Anyway, not sure why I am bothering as I am sure you're going to play the 'idiot's veto' again and claim "me no understandy".

Funny that we're arguing about purpose. You seem to have missed the whole goddamn purpose of this forum.

[quoteGod is all powerful and morally perfect. If we're woodchips from his birdhouse, then we can reasonably infer that he would make sure those sentient woodchips have a blissful existence.][/quote]

No we CAN'T. You yourself mentioned that we are not morally perfect, so it does not seem like we can reasonably infer anything about GOD'S morality.

Minds, that is, mint purposes. And it is when we create something for a purpose, or put something somewhere for a purpose, that the thing in question can then be said to have a purpose, namely the purpose for which it is made or put there.

See, this is where i don't follow you. When we create something for a purpose, how does that something now have a purpose? If it's literally just inanimate matter, how can we impart purpose to it? It's not a mind, so it can't "mint purposes."

Look, i don't see how if i made a shoe, and you found a plant shaped exactly like a shoe, that served as a better shoe than the one I made, that my made shoe would have more purpose than your found shoe. They're both being used in the same way. How does one's intentions change that? Does the shoe I made magically contain some sort of essence, some sort of 'shoeness' because I made it?

Others can use those things for different purposes. But then the purpose for which they are using it attaches to the action or project that they are engaged in, not the thing that they are using for that purpose.

How does that make sense? The purpose 'attaches?' Have you been misspelling 'porpoise' this whole time?
I don't see how a purpose can attach to anything. And what is your evidence for this? It seems completely arbitrary to me.

If God exists, then we are here for some purpose. For God is all powerful and perfectly good, so it is unreasonable in light of those facts to suppose that our lives here serve no purpose of his

I don't see how that follows at all. We could just be a byproduct of something actually important, like the woodchips from some divine birdhouse that is being made. You yourself refered to the "immoral natures that we ourselves seem to possess." If we do, how can you take God's 'perfect goodness' and infer anything from it at all? It seems like any value judgement you might make would be wild speculation. Just because he is all powerful does not mean that we are important enough to be punished. We might be way to insignificant to warrant amy effort on God's part.

If I use a shoe to hammer-in a nail, that does not mean that the shoe's purpose is to hammer-in nails. It's purpose is determined by its designers and builders, not its users.

No, I don't see how that's true at all. Almost by definiton, your shoe's purpose is to hammer in nails. If your end is to hammer a nail, that implies that your actions serve a purpose: "I am hitting this nail to hammer it into something." Then it's use in that context is hammering in nails, no? So, in that moment, that is the objects 'purpose' relative to you. Why do the designers of the shoe have the sole ability to 'determine' the shoe's purpose? If someone shapes inanimate material into a certain form, and it turns out to be usable in a myriad of ways, even thought the shaper only inended one, how does that change its usefulness? And if it's 'purpose' is somehow detached from its 'usefulness' then I don't see what is meant by 'purpose' in this instance.

What if the devleopers of the shoes developed them to be good for eating? How would that be their 'purpose' just because that's what the designers intended? They would still be inedible, and thus unusable.

So, the question presupposes a grander purpose than whatever your parents were trying to achieve

No, I don't think it does. When you are in a prison, and you ask your cellmate, "why are we here?" that begs the answer: because somebody else put us here. The reason, however, that the question begs that answer, is because you and the person you are speaking to understand the full context of the prison, and more importantly, understand how that environment relates to reality outside of said environment.

If you suddenly found yourself in a room from which there was no escape, you might be able to infer how you got there from seeing others forcibly put in similar rooms. However, if the explanation for why they were forcing people into confined spaces was because they were forced to do so by others who were themselves forced to do so, that would not neccesarily beg the answer "I am here for a grander pupose."

There are three purposes served by your being in the prison.

Well, the analogy clearly fails here, because if I allowed myself to get arrested and put in to prison for my own benefit, say, because i intended to help facilitate my accomplice's jailbreak, or because i was homeless, hungry, and needed healthcare, then the question "why am I here?" could be relevantly addressed by saying "I am here because of my own motives."

If we assume that the person who has put you here for some end is a good person - and I think they demonstrably are, but for now let's just assume it -

Okay, I will assume it- but i expect you to demonstrate it at some point or that leaves a pretty large gaping hole in your argument.

then we can safely assume that the end for which we have been put here is a good one.

Only assuming the person that put you here is able, which you haven't demonstrated.

Why on earth would a good person put innocent people in it?

I can think of some reasons. 1. To contain and control the wrongdoers (think prison guards) 2. To rehabilitate the wrongdoers. 3. Because "innocence" implies a lack of wrongdoing, which typically implies that there is wrong doing to be done. You mentioned that "You did wrong of your own free will" which implies that at some point the wrondoers were innocent.

So, those who ask "what is the purpose of us being here?" already assume a divine purpose.

No, not neccesarily. To be alive is to do. At the most basic level, your body "does" keep you alive by pumping blood, processing nutrients, bringing oxygen to your blood cells, etc. That's without you conciously "doing" anything. When you "do" things, you assume a purpose. To eat is to keep yourself alive, even if you don't conciously intend to. When you eat because you're hungry, you are, at least on a subconcious level, eating to quench a desire. A desire has a purpose, namely to propell you towards an end.

All these things are quite easily recognizable, but when you ask, what's life's purpose, you can't really give a reasonable answer other than "to create more life." However, when we begin to abstract, and ask " what's the purpose of that?" We go down a seemingly never ending road, because one can always ask "whats the purpose of purpose?"

So, at some point, one wishes to have a purpose that ties all the other ones together. But just because one wishes, does not gurantee that one will get. If there is a purpose that ties all purposes together, than either it will be unobtainable, or obtainable. If unobtainable, than one might ask "what's the purpose of my pursuing this unobtainable purpose?" But if obtainable, one might ask "what is the purpose of obtaining this purpose, since i will then have no more purpose?"

In conclusion, existence does not beg a divine purpose, neither does the question "why am i here?" Just because the question cannot be reasonably answered does not imply a transcendent, divine answer. That simply exchanges one mystery for another.