The “Selfish Gene” folks have it. It’s the basic survival instinct that all organisms have. We human beans just tend to lay all kinds of other stuff on top of that.
I’d say the masses cannot define what the “point” or purpose of any one individual’s life should be. But I think if you ask most people what the purpose of their own life is, the general form of the answer will be: to feel like you have done something meaningful. A lot of people fulfill that purpose by trying to raise kids into healthy, well-adjusted, productive adults. Some people pursue careers in public service, academic research, business, or charitable works. All of these things, the “meaning,” I think, is a pursuit of a kind of immortality, to be able to know that you will have a positive effect on this world long after your physical body is dead and gone.
And what is the point of that? To know that you gave others pleasure. And what is the point of giving others pleasure? To give yourself pleasure. A similar train of thought can apply to any other given reason for living. Therefore I conclude that the purpose of human (and animal) life is to experience pleasure. I wouldn’t be the first. Humans just have a more complicated way of experiencing and understanding and desiring and pursuing it than any other animal.
I decided a long time ago that the meaning of life is to have as much fun as possible without stepping on anyone else’s toes. It’s just as valid as anyone else’s idea.
People always bandy concepts of biology and evolution in order the answer the question, but I don’t think that really provides any real answer. What it describes is how, not why. Saying that we exist to pass on out own chemical configurations is not particularly logical. It’s merely another example of people looking to ascribe meaning to something that lacks it. I don’t think you can really say that there is a “why” to anything. In the end you really have to make up your own meaning. You can believe that we exist to pass on our own chemical configurations, but it’s not really any more valid then saying that we exist to do physical labor for Marduk.
How is it “illogical”? Why is it no more valid than saying we exist to do physical labor for Marduk?
You’re either taking the increasingly popular (sigh) post-modernist standpoint that every opinion is equally valid and there really is no right or wrong, or you don’t understand the concepts you’re trying to discredit. Have you read The Selfish Gene?
I don’t deny that the system functions as described, what I do deny is that the system has any inherent meaning. It serves to explain how organisms persist, but it doesn’t give any reason why the aforementioned organisms “should exist”. Just as how Gravity may keep you on the earth’s surface, it does not exist for that purpose. Does that clarify things?
Yes, I see what you mean now. I think it does explain why we exist (or would be widely accepted to do so, if it acheived Scientific Theory status, which I don’t think it has), but instead of giving a final answer it just pushes the problem back a step. Though I suspect if I knew more about biology I might also understand why the original organisms were/are compelled to survive and replicate.
Well ‘bandy’ isn’t the verb I’d have used… but really, people are just eager to pop Nation’s cherry, is all ;). And the biological explanation for existence isn’t really “merely another example of people looking to ascribe meaning”, it’s an example of people looking to explain to another person why there is no deeper spiritual meaning.
I guess the simplest answer is “there is no meaning,” cynical as it sounds.
These kinds of questions always start presuming that there must be an ultimate purpose for existence. Yet from our current theories of life and it’s origin this appears to be a non-starter. Single-celled organisms clearly don’t contemplate these kinds of questions, but their “purpose” for living is precisely the same as our own.
We are alive because of genes. Seriously, much in the same way parasites need a host to reproduce, genes are in fact parasites.
Genes cannot reproduce without a vehicle. We provide that vehicle.
If genes were capable of existing and reproducing without the need for a person, a plant or even a bacteria, they would do so and humans and virtually every other living thing wouldn’t have come about.
I think what the OP asked is open to a bit of interpretation. I wouldn’t say what you’re saying without getting clarification from him or her, whom I note has not been back to this thread since 15 minutes after posting it.
The problem with this question is that any answer must deal with the fact that sometimes people do things that they know may - or will - result in their own death. You can’t answer the question “Why are we alive?” without a discussion of values, and the fact that our values are sometimes greater than life itself. So the “purpose” of life has to be more than merely staying alive and reproducing.
People do things that sometimes result in their own death…so? That just means that for that person, the environment he has lived in and whatever predispositions he had and the situation he is put in has all conspired to make him take that sacrificial action. There’s really no need to treat a life ending decision any different than any other decision: there is an incentive, and the person, now incentivized, carries out the appropriate action.
There is no “point” if by point you mean some cosmic utility or purpose. The biological explanation was simply that, an explanation, not “merely another example of people looking to ascribe meaning to something that lacks it” as you accuse.