Then the answer varies by person, and no categorical “why” can be proffered. Perhaps it might be better stated “There is no WHY. But there are whys.”
Agreed. Life, or at least consciousness, is a completely subjective experience.
Looks to me like a conflation twixt:
[ul][li]The meaning (i.e. definition) of the word ‘life’, and[/li][li]The meaning (i.e. purpose) of the concept of life.[/ul][/li]
The first is a matter of semantics and the second is a matter of hanging out with your college buddies after a party until 3 a.m. smoking the reefer, chugging espresso and getting reaaaaaal deep into, like, the universe, maaaan.
Groovy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal
While you’re explaining politely, could you explain why your declaration must be categorical? Isn’t it possible that there is no reason for you to be here, while there is indeed a reason for someone else to be here?
I think Eve was talking in the more all-encompassing sense. There is no evidence to suggest there’s a Big Plan ™ that provides some universal meaning to our existence. We do, however, have the ability to live meaningful lives, however we choose to define that for ourselves. Where one person might be inventing vaccines to save millions from a horrible death, someone else might find self-fulfillment in playing the slot machines in Vegas. Is it possible those activities and everything in between could be part of a Big Plan ™? Sure…but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for someone or something to shine a light on it all.
You can give your life meaning. Whether you’re rich or poor, black or white, man or woman, old or young…you can find something that makes your stay on planet Earth worthwhile.
I thought my answer to your question is, that there is no different why for anyone, it is just “Be” cause. Why does ther have to be a reason? We are just a continuation of the beginning,and remain apart of the continuation. Life itself is purpose.
Monavis
[QUOTE=Kalhoun
I think Eve was talking in the more all-encompassing sense. There is no evidence to suggest there’s a Big Plan ™ that provides some universal meaning to our existence. We do, however, have the ability to live meaningful lives, however we choose to define that for ourselves. Where one person might be inventing vaccines to save millions from a horrible death, someone else might find self-fulfillment in playing the slot machines in Vegas. Is it possible those activities and everything in between could be part of a Big Plan ™? Sure…but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for someone or something to shine a light on it all.
You can give your life meaning. Whether you’re rich or poor, black or white, man or woman, old or young…you can find something that makes your stay on planet Earth worthwhile.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, the thing that gives my life meaning is my family, once my kids are happy I am happy. My purpose is to keep them fed, watered and as protected as I am able.
That’s what I mean by a categorical declaration. “There is no evidence” is disputable. I see evidence. I see sufficient evidence. In fact, I see overwhelming evidence. You (and by extension, Eve) are standing in a museum and declaring that there is nothing beautiful in here. Would it not be more appropriate for you to say, “I do not see evidence” rather than “there is no evidence”?
But isn’t that simply because you don’t value a Big Plan?
To you. What you do may not seem at all worthwhile to me, and vice versa. And by the way, this could take us into all kinds of territory, such as the ethical abomination of coercion, and the way it forces one man’s plan upon another. But I’ll spare you that tangent.
It is if you value life. Who are you to tell me that there is no why for me? If you want to live my life, then pay my mortgage.
Maybe I should have said, “you cannot show me the evidence that has convinced you that there is a Big Plan ™.” At least, I’m fairly certain that if you could show me, you would.
I cannot place value on something that I can’t evaluate. But I can tell you that if there IS a Big Plan ™, and if someone could lay that plan out for me, I would definitely take time out of my busy life to decide whether or not it was worth my further attention.
Um…I think that’s what I just said. Everyone’s interpretation of a meaningful life cannot possibly be the same. There will be people who value things that you or I may have absolutely no interest in. A meaningful life, while it may be dictated to some degree by society, can ultimately only be fulfilled by the individual. As I’ve said before, I value art above nearly every other thing as a tool for achieving human understanding. Other people may think it’s frivolous. Tough shit. Their opinion may be fine for them, but it doesn’t lessen the value of art to me. I must create my own meaningful existence.
(Not to go off on a different track, but I’m going to ignore the questions on the meaning of life and try to address the questions on the definition of life.)
“Life is that which seeks to continue its own existence.”
Just to clarify, are you attempting to define “life” as “that which seeks to continue its own existence?” I seek to continue my own existence. Does that mean that I am Life? Are you Life? Most likely a semantic problem, but a problem nonetheless.
I think that, in general, the OP’s definition has quite a few problems, other than the one mentioned above.
First off, there is the question of scale. Is “life” a property of individuals, groups, or both?
Under the OP’s definition, a human being (or any individual) is alive (is life?) if it seeks to continue its own existence. What happens with suicide, martyrdom, Ben sacrificing himself to save Jerry’s life, willingness to die for a belief, or other such circumstances where a person chooses to not live anymore? Certainly those individuals are not seeking to continue their own existences.
Generally, when a person chooses (I use “choose” loosely, in deference to the psychiatric professionals, who would know a great deal more about this process than I) commit suicide, but before they actually go through with it, they have stopped seeking their own existence. (Or, at the very least, their consciousness has started seeking its own demise.) Therefore, they are not alive under this definition.
Similarly, if a person sacrifices himself to save another, or to advance a political opinion, or as a martyr, they are similarly defined outside the realm of the living. After all, the OP’s definition makes no exception for life’s activities in circumstances of duress.
Thus, we have a definition that defines life partially based on the choices that an individual makes. If an individual stops, by choice, seeking its own existence, it is no longer alive, even if it continues to have a heartbeat, have brainwaves, produce offspring, eat, excrete, and so on. Shall we define life by the choices we, as sentient beings, make? Such a definition seems to me to be meaningless.
Then again, you may argue that, although the consciousness/spirit/“mind”/soul/whatever of a person wants to ceace its own existence, the body still wants to endure. After all, a proto-martyr’s heart still pumps blood. His cells metabolize. He digests food and gets energy. Life may simply not be a possible attribute of the consciousness/spirit/“mind”/soul/whatever just as “fast” is not an attribute of the color blue. Can we split a person, saying that their body is alive but their mind is not?
But then again, if we don’t posit the metaphysical, all consciousness must be based on the same metabolism scheme that keeps our heart beeting and our stomaches digesting. How can the physical system of the individual be alive if it alone produces the congnition which leads to its own destruction? We are back in the same fix.
And if we do posit the metaphysical, that consciousness can somehow be seperated from the physical circumstances of the body, we have the funny situation where we have an entity, consciousness, capable of emotion, fears, anxieties, attraction, love, hate, hunger and so on, that we do not deem alive. This would be strange indeed, and would render life equivalent to metabolism.
This is why I believe the OP’s definition of life excludes the individual, as it is possible for a human being to seek its own destruction and still be alive.
Perhaps “alive” is an attribute that cannot possibly label individuals, just as “intelligent” cannot label noises. When Ben sacrifices himself to save Jerry, it could be construed that whatever “Life” is attributable to Ben is actually attributable to Ben’s group, or specifically, to Ben’s species. Ben may not be alive, but “Humanity” is. This seems to present its own problems. Individuals may or may not seek their own existences, but groups can? By what mechanism do species, as a whole, seek things?
On another point, there seem to be things that seek their own existence, but are not considered alive under any typical definition. A Forest Fire, it could be argued, seeks its own existence. It moves. It consumes wood and excretes ash. It spawns off little forest fires. It grows. It certainly produces energy out of “food,” and when it fails to get food, it dies.
No, I don’t have a better definition of life. It just goes to show you how difficult defining things can be.
We agree on that 100%. The reason I cannot show you is because our consciousnesses are closed and subjective. You cannot live my life.
I would say the why for you, was that because of your parents(and fore bearers) you were born. Born to live as everyone who is born, being the best you can be. I would say you would not need to make a morgage payment if you rented. I would not want to, or be able to live the life of another. If you are alive, then you are to live,how you live is mostly your choice. life in my belief is purpose.
Monavis