"Let instinct trump logic" - bad advice. Instinct is simply pattern matching current conditions against memory. Without experience, instinct is a poor criteria and logic should be employed. Read Kahneman for the supporting research into that.
"Let instinct trump logic" - bad advice. Instinct is simply pattern matching current conditions against memory. Without experience, instinct is a poor criteria and logic should be employed. Read Kahneman for the supporting research into that.
I'd also recommend Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind (http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/d...). He makes a lot of interesting points, including that most people come to a conclusion about an issue, then look for reasoning to support it, and that most of us operate on instinct most of the time—logic is a more costly, difficult mode whose use can be cultivated but which is not at all the default.
Yeah, our past experiences create walls of thought around us and make it hard to see or imagine what things are like outside them. Logic is one tool that can help us, as well as imagination. There are probably others.
Thank you! This is the one point I very much disagreed with from this talk. His argument is that our logical brain, which is new, is first to interpret our environment but am pretty sure that premise is flawed. Our irrational, fast, animal side is first given sensory input and a chance to act on it... Fight, flee, flinch, do nothing... At which point the slower, newer, better evolved logical side begins to work through it and make rational decisions. This newer side is what truly separates us from the rest of the animals out there, and is what creates everything.. Society, self-awareness, inventions, everything.
Not to say instinct is bad. It's extremely valuable, and as Blink Theory pointed out so famously, has it's place as well.
But as you said, I agree it's bad advice to let one simply trump the other.
However, as he states in the article, instinct is the result of experience. He is saying the mechanism of instinct is older in humans than logic, so the process is more refined/trustworthy when comparing the two. Seems right to me..
The mechanism of instinct has emerged from the evolutionary process to provide a survival and reproduction advantage over others. Instinct most certainly is an advantage for species (may be just random path-dependent mutation), not for the individual. Thus we shouldn't trust on instinct alone to find an optimal solution for sense/meaning problem.
That's my feeling too. We have lots of famous examples of intuitive, breakthrough, "a-ha" moments by great inventors, so we use that for inspiration.
However, there have been billions of bad-instinct decisions as well, ranging from "should have zigged instead of zagged" while driving a fast car around a curve to Napoleon invading Russia.
For the vast majority of people, constantly thinking about the meaning of life and dwelling on the fact that you're going to die seems like a recipe for anxiety. Trying to adopt a set of contradictory rules to follow would likely only compound that anxiety. To summarize the formula laid out by the author:
1. Remember, you're going to die!
2. Plan for the future, but not too much or you'll have multiple divorces and no friends.
3. Think about the present, but not too much or you'll end up poor and unhappy.
4. Think about the past to remember how far you've come.
5. Only do work where you are in "the flow", so you can be happy when you're dying (remember, you're going to die!)
I'm not saying these activities are pointless or bad in isolation, I just think it's unrealistic and generally not practical to have all that rattling around in your head while you make decisions about how to spend your time. Just buckle up and enjoy the ride. Be nice to others, find interesting things to work on and have some fun. If you spend all your time worried about whether your current activity and state of mind is somehow optimized for achieving the meaning of life, you have a good chance of being overwhelmed and paralyzed by it.
I went to a debate about the existence of God a few months ago. Dan Barker, an atheist who has contributed to the Daily Show, had the winning quote:
"There is no meaning of life -- and that's a great thing: it means that there's meaning in life."
The quote is poignant regardless of your religious affiliation. Barker was saying that the meaning of life is intensely personal. Each of us invents it through our own experiences.
Your comment and that talk reminded me of a philsophy lecture I had about Nietzsche and the reason behind the "Übermensch".
Nietzsche feared that the progression of atheism would lead to broadly accepted Nihilism. Which would have the implication of anarchy and moralless behaviour.
So he imagined the "Übermensch", a person who choses his own meaning and own morals, free from any moral commitment society has placed upon him.
- "meaning" or "purpose" in life is whatever we feel "meaningful" or "purposeful".
- those feelings are derived through our upbringing, culture, biochemical quirks, etc.
Therefore if we could find whichever set of chemicals or brainwashing techniques made us feel 'meaningful', then that sense would allow just as valid and 'meaningful' an existence as any other?
Isn't that merely hedonism, just with 'meaning' as the ultimate pleasure?
Of course it's hedonistic. But what is wrong with that? I would go so far as to posit that all actions, charitable or otherwise, are driven by the self serving goal of personal satisfaction.
If it brings you joy to help others then it becomes a bit of a semantic and meaningless debate as to whether your intentions are noble or not.
It's important to be careful with our definitions. Hedonism in everyday language refers to minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure, with those two words defined imprecisely. The fact that people may derive utility from experiencing pain, both directly (enjoying pain signals themselves) or indirectly (choosing to suffer pain for some "greater good," like a sacrifice for a family member), is usually ignored in the everyday definition of hedonism. Of course, if we define hedonism to mean "people should do what they decide is the best thing for them to do," then it's a fairly obvious thing to support, mainly because it's impossible for a human to do otherwise because of the definitions of "should" and "best."
In common terms I assume people to mean that an action was taken simply to experience pleasure. It's generally used negatively to imply that there is an emptiness and a selfishness driving the actor which I tend to dispute.
I think that your second definition is both easy to support and reduced beyond usefulness. If one experiences pleasure from pain (BDSM, piercing, tattoos, or as you mentioned sacrifice) then there is no paradox, no need to ignore these situations and no need for an alternate, even more vague definition.
Under your proposed definition that includes sacrifice and enjoying pain, how is it possible for anyone to not be practicing hedonism? It's by definition impossible to make a choice that is not your preferred choice.
This is the thing - without an external (to ourselves) frame of reference, all actions are equal. Killing someone, or ignoring a beggar on the street, or kissing a friend, are all equal. Whichever gives us pleasure is the best to do.
We can easily argue that we only do that which brings us pleasure with the understanding that acting on our personal morals even against our purely animal bodies gives us a greater or 'higher' pleasure...
I think this is the kind of hedonism being proposed as normal/natural/good by some people here.
I believe that there is a moral code outside of our limited personal experience, and that most of us have some sense of that. Most of us instinctively feel that killing someone is "bad", and helping an old granny across the street is "good".
Not all do, and in a purely hedonistic amoral philosophy, it's right and proper for a psychopathic sadist to hurt others, if that gives them the greatest pleasure. And then it's purely right and proper for society to stop them. But both the sadist and the society are of equal "rightness" in this wordview.
And I reject that. I believe there are moral and immoral actions. And no matter how we feel, or what we believe, there is an absolute "good" and "bad".
There's also an awful lot of gray areas. And most of us are far too judgemental and see things from our own perspective.
What's best for society, or what's "moral," is a different matter. It's still by definition impossible to make a choice that is not one's preferred choice, so it's silly to recommend someone to do so. I realize that this is a bit too semantic for everyday usage (thus you could reasonable tell someone "don't murder someone even if you want to"), but I think it's an important distinction to make if we're waxing philosophical.
Life, as you experience it, is nothing more than a wash of chemicals acting on your brain. Even if you don't imbibe anything specifically intended to alter your brain chemistry, trying to change your thought patterns and behaviour to match some "meaningful ideal" or lifestyle does so anyway.
We're all just looking for the s/meaning of life/brain chemistry that makes us happy/g.
Arent we already doing that? Isnt 'meaning' just a word, a product of the human brain? Plus many people under hallucinogenics report experiences with various intensities of 'meaning'
Indeed.
Likewise diseases like Williams Syndrome and Epilepsy make us realize "meaning" might be somewhat subjective.
I saw a program some years back, I can't remember the name of it, but it discussed how meaning or significance is given biologically. Apparently there is a "significance" filter in "normal" people. Upon looking at a picture of their mothers face for instance, normal people have a reaction. Autistic people do not. There are other conditions somewhat related to epilepsy in which everything sets off the "significant" trigger. The program speculated this is the source of the religious-epileptic connection. Sorry for the rough paraphrase... I can't remember the details.
If I understand the argument, then yes. And it seems rather tragic to me. One of the philosophical benefits to faith in God is that 'meaning' actually is more than just another 'meaningless' chemical reaction. There actually is a reason to live beyond just trying to stay happy.
I do believe in God, I do believe there is more to life than keeping the chemical state of my body such that I feel happy and fulfilled. I do believe that my life can have a purpose. I've tried, and failed, to find a reason to without a deity who gives a metaphysical meaning to it all. I stand in awe of atheists - I simply don't have the strength to live without the faith and relationship with God that I believe I have.
Are you saying that you express belief in God not because you actually believe God exists in a factual sense, but because you are unable to handle believing that God does not exist? If that's what you're saying, it seems a bit odd, even from a religious perspective. I believe that the major theistic religions teach that God (or gods) actually exist, which is to say their teachings are not just helpful but also true.
I was brought up in reasonably traditional Christian family(in the faith sense, rather than the cultural one), but always given the choice & encouragement by my parents to explore and find my own answers.
As a teenager, a lot of my friends at church were very strict hard-line evangelicals, and a lot of their attitudes irritated the crap out of me. However, my atheist, agnostic, new-age and Buddhist friends consistently were supportive and friendly to me. I felt far more at home in that environment than amongst those who (ostensibly) shared the same faith as me.
I became very disillusioned with the church, and investigated the beliefs of my friends, co-workers, and what I believed, trying to figure it out. I came to a personal belief that either
a) there is a personal/relational God, not a vague force, nor some angry judgemental law-stickler
or
b) there is no God, the limit of existence is physics. Love, relationships, meaning, etc. are all merely chemical reactions inside the 'clockwork' (for lack of a better term) bodies that we, by some weird happenstance believe that we have/are.
All the other alternatives (dualism, polytheism, paganism, Confucianism, Buddhism, etc) seemed to be either total nonsense, or wishy-washy without real answers (apologies to anyone of those positions - I'm speaking of my feelings at the time).
So with those two positions, I found that I couldn't accept that everything was meaningless - or in a "positive" light, that everything was equally meaningful. That my parents loving me was as "meaningful" as someone else's parents abusing them out of some misguided sense of discipline.
I couldn't make myself believe that. So I believe that there is some kind of moral framework that makes love "better" than hate. That makes everyone alive actually of worth, rather than simply an arrangement of atoms of equal value to a chair, or pile of primeval slime.
Either there is some kind of external person that gives meaning and relational value to people, and to the "higher" concepts of love, faith, hope, trust, acceptance, loyalty, or else there was nothing. Men who run away with younger women who meet their sexual desires could be complemented on having found satisfaction, rather than accused of disloyalty - for loyalty would be nothing more than an outmoded evolutionary advantage for helping survival.
So, I found a faith. I asked God - if he/she/it were there, what the hell the point of it all was, and if he/she/it did exist, how I could actually do something worth while with my life, and I believe they answered me.
I've been working unpaid the last 8 years for a charity (OM), raising my own sponsorship from friends/family/churches to work with this God, who I believe is trying to save humanity. I believe I have a relationship with him, that my life has purpose, and that there is a reason to exist: God loves us, but allows us to have free will (under the restrictions of physics, etc...) so that we can have a free relationship with him, un-coerced. I believe he loves me, that I love him, and that the best thing I can do is introduce others to him.
That is so much shorter than what I posted on Derek Siver's site it is embarrassing:
Born at the end of the '60s just before Christmas I was named after a saint. Later I found out that Santa Claus was largely invented by Coca-Cola to sell sodas and all the unlikely, but commonly held, beliefs that he was omniscient and omnipresent for at least one night of the year was seriously undermined.
Then it was only a short jump to realise that Jesus was probably all made up too, that he wasn't the son of God and, by extension, there might well not be a God.
I became a devout atheist at the age of seven - by 'devout' I mean that were there to be a Rapture as some believe that there will be, I will consider the 'proof' of the second coming to be symptomatic of hallucination, possibly a spiked water supply, and refuse to believe in God because I prefer to live my life that way without one.
The question "What is the meaning of life?" had no easy answers in 'forgiveness', or 'love thy neighbour', or the promise of an afterlife for those who did good deeds as if we were on Santa's omniscient list of good children to recieve presents. So I used logic and logic alone to arrive at the definitive objective answer no matter how it may seem uncomfortable to my sensibilities to reveal it.
The truth is, that to ask this question objectively you have to necessarily be totally objective about life and to be objective about anything you have to be outside of it with a detached point of view. With 'life, the universe and everything' with a whole 'philosophical universe of discourse' included in the set of things being considered I had to immediately dismiss all instrinsic attempts at an answer as not definitively objective due to their lack of detachment and inescapable subjective bias.
Realising that I needed to be outside the 'universe of discourse' to properly pose the question I saw what the difficulty with answering this had been all this time...
...'meaning' is part of the 'universe of discourse' and it not available if outside of it.
Consequently, all claims to a definitive meaning of life are erroneous in logic as an objective answer cannot be found. It is not so much that life is meaningless and we should all be nihilistic atheists, but that we are free to live any way we please as there is no wrong answer - as there is no definitive objective ULTIMATE answer!
Every way you wish to give your life meaning is equally valid for your life, with the caveat that this is an ephemeral guideline you choose to adopt not an eternal truth - actually, I like the way this same argument was presented "in reverse" by Mr Sivers as whenever I have posted about this in various fora in the past I have felt that I've come across as overly alienating by hitting them with the cold truth first instead of pandering to their intimately held, but unfortunately subjective, beliefs. Putting it all the other way around encourages more people to read on and seems more life affirming - even if I know, in truth, that life is without extrinsic meaning.
There is only one inherent value to consciousness, and it is pleasure.
What is the evidence for this claim? It is directly perecptible. To see the proof of this, all you have to do is look.
Everything else you value should be for the sake of this ultimate value. (Because there is no other ultimate value for them to be for the sake of.)
Now, this isn't an endorsement of hedonism, which I take to mean "doing whatever feels good." Rather, you should pursue pleasure systematically.
First, it must be sustainable over the long term (your lifespan). Second, it must account for the various kinds of emotions (e.g. serenity, self-esteem, etc.). Third, it must account for the fact that these emotions are effects that have specific causes.
I think "pleasure" is the wrong word to use here, because it conceals that what you're really saying is a tautology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that people should pursue the things that they desire. Words like "pleasure" or "happiness" might imply leaving out things like uncomfortable or painful exercise and diet in pursuit of future happiness from improved health or appearance, or sacrificing something of value for a friend or charity.
"Utility" might be a better word than "pleasure" or "happiness."
I'm saying that people should pursue pleasure, not whatever they happen to desire.
To concretize, pleasure breaks down into two categories: physical pleasure and emotional pleasure. The former includes being full instead of hungry, etc. The latter includes happiness, joy, serenity, etc.
So you need to realize that attaining certain kinds of desires lead to maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, and adjust your desires accordingly.
If you just pursue whatever you happen to desire without reference to any further standard, which is hedonism, you will not maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
For instance, I may not feel like exercising or going on a diet, but if I realize that those things will maximize my pleasure, then I now have the ability to desire to do them, because they are a value to me.
When you suggest "utility" as a better word, you are begging the question. Utility for what? To whom? Why would one kind of thing constitute utility, and not something else?
The answer is that there is only one kind of ultimate, inherent utility for a conscious being: pleasure. Everything else that has utility has utility for the sake of pleasure.
Let me know if you have any thoughts and want to continue the conversation.
It's a false dichotomy unless you can actually provide an objective dichotomy against the two types of pleasures you mention. I derive pleasure from saving my money, because I know that earns me some financial security and allows me to buy bigger and cooler things in the future. I derive pleasure from exercise that is physically uncomfortable, because I know there are future benefits.
"Utility" is absolutely a better word for this, because "pleasure" often has the connotation of immediate physical euphoria without regard for future ion sequences. In a way, you're right that it's begging the question. Saying "people should do what gives them utility" is basically saying "people should make the decisions they prefer," or "people should do what they think they should do."
> "Utility" is absolutely a better word for this, because "pleasure" often has the connotation of immediate physical euphoria
Utility is worthless without getting you something, which is pleasure. I'm just stating it in more fundamental terms than you are, and getting right to the point. Talking about it, intsead, as "utility" is just making it more absract and muddying the waters.
And it doesn't matter what connotation you think pleasure has---I have stated the definition I am using, and it's not the connotation you want to associate with it. If you have a better term than "pleasure," let me know, but "utility" is not it. "Joy" would work. "Happiness" would work. Presuming a certain definition of those things which essentially equates to a generalized form of long-term emotional pleasure.
> Utility is worthless without getting you something, which is pleasure.
"Utility" is generally defined to mean getting what one desires. It's not abstract. "Pleasure" could be defined in the same way, and if you're defining it to be synonymous with "utility" then that's your choice, but it usually carries the connotation of immediate sensory euphoria whereas "utility" does not. But I don't understand your criticism of the word "utility."
I'm not defining pleasure to mean "getting what one desires," hence it is non synonomous with the definition you are using for "utility." Pleasure is a particular sensation.
For instance. If you get something you desire, you may feel pleasure, or you may not. Or maybe you'll feel pleasure for a little while, but not as long as you expected to.
Going in the reverse direction, if you feel pleasure, you may have gotten something you desired, but you may not have---e.g. a massage may feel good even if you didn't expect it to beforehand.
When I talk about "pleasure" I do mean something that you experience in the moment---just like "hot" and "cold." You feel it at a particular time, or not. But that does not exclude a long-term experience of pleasure, such as a general state of emotional happiness. In fact, the latter is what I am more interested in.
Some people associate the word "pleasure" with a necessarily temporary and immediate experience, but that is merely a connotation, it is not the definition of the word.
Pleasure is the only thing that is inherently valuable to a conscious organism. It feels good.
There would be no reason to pursue the things you desire if pursuing them and/or getting them didn't make you feel good.
If pursuing them and/or getting them does make you feel good, there is a reason to pursue them. But the reason is because they make you feel good---because they bring pleasure.
That is the same as saying: For me, it is pleasurable to pursue things I desire, even if it involved immediate physical discomfort, like exercise.
In fact, if you want to replace "pleasure" in my whole argument with "good feeling," that is perfectly fine.
Separately, I think you may be equating "satisfying desires" with "feeling good." They definitely aren't the same. In fact, you want to pick values (=desires) in your life that are going to maximize feeling good when you pursue and achieve them.
In front of me, there are three great mountains:
1. The pleasure as you described.
2. Determinism.
3. Nihilism.
I don't know why pleasure is valuable to consciousness. To determinism, if we are free to think, we can just observe our life without real pains or real gains. To nihilism, I just don't know everything, including nihilism.
I just wonder why I should jump to a conclusion. For my intuition?
Other people's pleasure is not inherently valuable to me, just neutral. However, I do value other people's pleasure when it increases my pleasure.
It is pretty obvious why this applies to loved ones and friends, but it actually extends to all of society. A happier society is a better place to live, with more productivity, more to be inspired by (and not discouraged by), etc.
I can't understand how any comment that posits the existence of God or objective morality has been downvoted to oblivion, yet comments that suggests that the only meaning (and thus morality) lies in increasing one's own pleasure are rising to the top.
I'd also like to add that michaelsbradley's comment way down at the bottom of the page sums up my Christian belief on the meaning of life pretty nicely even though I'm not Catholic. (and I suspect I have a different interpretation of "the Church" when I read that statement)
Reason and faith, science and religion, are not enemies or necessarily in tension with one another.
Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J.[1] does a fine job of exploring evidence for God's existence from modern science[2]. Many notable scientists were/are persons of faith[3].
In summary, finding the meaning OF life (to quote Dan Barker - thanks @hawkharris) is to find the meaning IN life, for you personally.
A the end of the day, we look for the meaning of/in life to ultimately be happy, or at least content. For that, we need a "purpose", and the philosopher Daniel Dennentt has some good advice here:
“Find something more important than you are, and dedicate your life to it.”
So, how do you find your purpose - something that is "more important than you are"? For many people, the answer is based in religious belief. Others may find value in a letter penned by 20 year old Hunter S. Thompson:
"In every man, heredity and environment have combined to produce a creature of certain abilities and desires—including a deeply ingrained need to function in such a way that his life will be MEANINGFUL. A man has to BE something; he has to matter.
As I see it then, the formula runs something like this: a man must choose a path which will let his ABILITIES function at maximum efficiency toward the gratification of his DESIRES."
I would add that the DESIRES need to be aligned with, and perhaps subservient to, that thing which is "more important than you are", otherwise ==> hedonism.
Nice to be reminded of this. I'm researching Stoic philosophy, and a core question is "what is your life about?". Nice to be reminded that any meaning in my life is what I choose to place on it, not what it intrinsically has.
Similar: the value of something is what someone will pay for it. Intrinsic value is a mirage.
True, unless you didn't take philosophy classes, or if you just memorized what a bunch of other people said without really thinking about applying it to your own life.
Nietzsche is not about avoiding suffering though.
Nor is he about "accepting" suffering.
His belief is about an act of will. That you "will" what happens to you. By this act we obtain power over life and the events in it. (not sure I fully agree... just stating what I understand).
"Was that life? Well then! Once more!" -from Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
"People at the end of their life who claimed to be the happiest with their life were the ones who had spent the most time in this state of flow."
I can certainly believe this.
If you are not familiar with the concept of "flow state" (Samadhi in Hindu cultures [1]), I'd recommend reading the wonderful "Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art" by Stephen Nachmanovitch [2] over the more famous "Flow" by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
* Consider the apparent self-assembling of the universe over the last 13.8 billion years.
* Consider the seeming overall long-term trend (certainly not a monotonic one) of "improvement" in life. Adapting Gregg Easterbrook's thought experiment [2]: Would you permanently trade places with a random person who lived 1,000 years ago? How about 10,000 years ago? Would anyone, at any time, do so?
It's a defensible proposition that, as theologian Philip Hefner put it, we are created co-creators [3]. To what end? Who knows. But if past performance is any indication, it'll be pretty neat.
From this perspective, conducting one's life in accordance with (a weak version of) Pascal's Wager [4] seems like a reasonable course of action.
I don't see the significance of the trading places question. Would you trade places with a random person 1,000 years in the future either? Or a random person on Earth today? Or even a random person among the top 1,000 most successful (by your own definition) on Earth today? Or even a person you specifically choose? It seems like most relatively happy or even comfortable people would say no to all these opportunities.
I see little point in trying to ascertain the "meaning" of life. From what I see, life itself gives birth to the concept of meaning not the other way around.
But I guess it would be hard to get speaking engagements saying "you are born, then you die, and what you do in between is a waste of time"....
Even if this were the case in reality. (Which I'm not saying it is).
> I see little point in trying to ascertain the "meaning" of life. From what I see, life itself gives birth to the concept of meaning not the other way around.
Did you actually listen to the talk? He comes to the same conclusion.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. We don't come to the same conclusions. I'm saying the concept of "meaning".... not the "meaning of life" is something derived from the property of life itself. Therefore using this concept to ask a question in a larger context probably isn't valid.
I thought life is all about launching a minimal viable product, tweaking it to narrow in on product/market fit, and then scaling up. You mean there's more to life AFTER that ?! oh brother. I'll worry about that once I get there
tl;dr: We choose to give life meaning. It is our choice of assignment of meaning (or not), that is the only thing to be discussed here. (Yay existentialism!)
When you think about the incredible number of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, having untold habitable planets, existing for tens of billions of years? Then we think about our one planet Earth, and how each of us lives only 50-100 years and then we're gone?
We have the question backwards. In the grand scheme of things, we're much less than a speck on a mote somewhere, a fruit fly. We're completely inconsequential. It's not for us to ask what life is about. We have the question backwards. Instead life -- that thing that has existed for eons before we were ever a possibility and that will exist eons after our memory is gone -- is asking us "What is the meaning of you?"
Life sets us up with initial conditions and gives us various challenges as we go through our minuscule little part of it. It is during these experiences that Life is asking us what our meaning is. Our choices provide the reply.
Being alive is answering the question: what is my meaning? We could no more judge the meaning of life itself than we could begin to count the habitable planets in the sky. To phrase the question in this way is just to provide busywork instead of dealing with the reality in front of us.
Just want to correct the line 'Life is Suffering' when you brought up Buddhism. That sounds sadistic. Buddhist's idea is suffering exists. Which is presented as a fact that can be seen with a rational mind. And life is to be lived in pursuit of eliminating suffering for yourself and others. Just thought, I point this out.
Its not sadistic. Life was full of suffering for vedic nomads who finally settled down in cities. Instead of turing outwards philosophers of that time lie buddha and mahavira turned inwards for comfort.
Life is suffering regardless of your position in time and space if you haven't attained nibanna. Its not specific to the vedic nomads otherwise there would be no need to walk the eight fold path in the first world. Suffering is the first noble truth.
>Life is suffering regardless of your position in time and space
Is it though? I've lived several third world countries and a couple of first world countries. I know from first hand experience that life in rich countries is much much less suffering and is good 80% of the time whereas in third world countries is 80% suffering.
What is the point of our developments in science and technology if everyone is still suffering equally.
From a Buddhist perspective: In what country do you not have death of loved ones, old age, sickness? In what country do you not have attachments, fear or sadness? Technology can make us more comfortable, but not "solve" life for us. Some people have more comfort in life than others, animals are even worse off than poor people, and gods in heavens are more comfortable than Bill Gates, yet all of them will face death and sickness in this life (including the gods in buddhism). The only escape is Nirvana.
From a secular perspective: There are lots of ways to look at this. We could see everyone as being on a spectrum. Your happiness levels depend on your position on the spectrum relative to your peers. Poor people in the US have cars, yet they are extremely unhappy and suffering. The same amount of wealth in India would make you middle class and much happier. So clearly the happiness is not a function only of money but also of perception. People were in general just as happy or sad 3000 years ago as they are today, what has technology achieved then? If technology was making the world more equal, I would support the proposition that development is a net positive, as everyone would have the chance to grow spiritually rather than spend a human birth just surviving, but that's not the case. Technology divides more than it equalizes. There is no "point" to technology, it will happen. There's no use fighting it, there's no use supporting it over everything else. Technological progress is a fact of life. There is a point to equality, it allows everyone to achieve their potential and maybe reduce actual suffering on the planet.
This is like a skin cell asking what is the meaning of life. The meaning of life is larger than our individual selves, and is found in the totality of life: we are either the recursive self creation of God, or the creation of some super intelligence seeking answers to questions it can not. Either way, our purpose is clear: create heaven, create time travel, teleport all living entities at the moment of their death to heaven, and then provide comfort, care, and understanding. Yeah, not my idea: read "The Light of Other Days", Arthur C Clark's last novel.
If you are seeking meaning, consider attending an alpha course. It is a forum for atheist, agnostic, and Christian alike, on the topic of Christianity and faith. http://www.alpha.org/about
From the site: Alpha really is for anyone who’s curious. The talks are designed to encourage debate and explore the basics of the Christian faith in a friendly, honest and informal environment.
Some people postulate the meaning of life resides in God.
So I wonder then, what the meaning of God's life would be?
Simply adding recursive complexity doesn't solve the question, but now you have two problems.
For the record, I think the real problem is the question. It supposes that "meaning" can be something outside of what we experience and I don't believe it can be.
After I realized the recursion inside my conclusion, I jumped out for a while and asked you another question: Is the conclusion from that video/talk a tautology or a pure belief? The author just described what he experienced and didn't talk about the relationship between meanings and his intuition. He believed meanings do not come from what he feels (the artifical Chinese characters), and didn't say why his intuition let him hold that belief for natural things. He just know his own feelings.
This remind me of some words from Buddhists -- Everyone can not see the truth through other people's eyes.
So you're asking where my ignorance came from? Well, I don't know. But I don't think I have any real reason to believe the author. :( Am I self-abased?
Anyway, I like this joke: "Life is hard." (Sorry.)
There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide - Albert Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus.
Yes we can invent stupid justifications for life like 'life is about love', 'life is helping others' and a million other equally bizzare justifications but in the end its just a pointless absurdity.
There is no more value or correctness in calling life 'pointless' or 'absurd'.
Framing things that "life is about helping people" is bizarre and "in the end life is absurd and pointless" is not right, it's still trying to put human concepts on an inexplicable universe, but positioning oneself as superior to everyone else while doing so.
Life is a gift of God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, who in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in God's own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.
Adapted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It reflects my own belief and answer to this question, and I am happy to be numbered among billions over the centuries who would have answered Siver's question in the same way.
I'm not hating on your answer here, you certainly are free to believe as you wish and at least as right as anyone else, but appeal to popularity, especially when that popularity was often forced at the point of a sword, is not a very good argument.
I did not make an appeal to popularity. I believe what the Church teaches, and I am perfectly happy being one sheep among billions in the sheepfold – that was my point.
The reason I pointed that out is that, other controversies aside, in an age of hyper-individualism, the fact that a set of beliefs is shared by so many is itself often an unstated motive for doubt.
I'd say the phrase, "nobody wins an argument", most definitely applies to debates between believers and non-believers; i.e. he's not arguing in favor of Christianity, but rather is in the business of saving souls.
Curious, are you familiar with the writings of Thomas Merton? Outside of Paradise Lost, the other book that made me realize the Christian leap is not without reason is, "The 7 Story Mountain"
Anyway, obviously you are a fully converted Christian, congratulations on your happiness ;-)
I have not read that book by the late Thomas Merton, though I am familiar with the author and I've heard others recommend Merton's works numerous times. I should probably put it back on my "to read" list.
From a Catholic perspective, reason and faith necessarily go together and official Church teaching rejects fideism[1] outright. That's not to say that individuals don't experience "leaps of faith", wherein reason and belief may be in tension with one another for brief periods.
Most of my Christian reading these days consists of historical works, treatments of specific topics (e.g. theology of Atonement), and spiritual classics (e.g. Augustine's "Confessions", Scupoli's "Spiritual Combat"[2]).
Thanks for the links, I have yet to read Augustine's "Confessions", that's going on the Amazon order list.
I'm a big fan of spiritual autobiography, which is exactly what the 7 Story Mountain is all about, the story of Merton's fall and salvation -- it's really quite beautiful, can't recommend it highly enough ;-)
Curious, may I ask why the Church seems to be emphasized over Jesus in your posts? Put another way, before the Church came to be there was Jesus -- should the cart not come before the horse?
It's not an auto-biography, but one of my favorite books is a biography of a modern saint, or at least a man who I think will be canonized some day: Strange Vagabond of God[1], by Fr. John Dove, S.J.
The book tells the life-story of John Bradburne[2] – mystic, poet, wanderer, care-taker of lepers. There are very few recordings of John reciting his own poetry[3] but a couple of them were featured in a short film about his life: Mombe! (Cry Cattle!)[4] and Love (1971)[5].
For a Catholic Christian, the Church and Jesus always go together, for the Church is Our Lord's mystical body[6], of which he is the head. The Apostle St. Paul in his epistle to Timothy refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth"[7]; St. Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop in the 3rd Century, would remind his flock that "he cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother."[8] The Church is the context for my personal relationships with Jesus and His Blessed Mother[9]. It is in and through the Church that I have received and am continually strengthened by the life of Divine Grace[10], nourished with the very body and blood of Jesus[11], and taught the truth about myself, other men, the world and its Creator and Redeemer.
John Bradburne, pretty far out look in his eyes back in the 70s, unkempt and going old school desert style asceticism no doubt. Would like to hear a recording of him reciting a poem (same-ish deal with Merton, there are some recordings from Gethsemani, the monastery that 7 Story Mountain leads to, but not much, few things on Youtube if you search for it).
Peace Pilgrim, if you've heard of her, while not technically Christian, lived a Godly life, pretty amazing faith to walk across the country in the name of peace, penniless, only taking food or shelter if offered -- her autobiography is astounding.
I'll put this one out there for contrast, Pure Heart, Enlightened Mind[1] I imagine you've prayed from time to time, no? Obviously, yes ;-) Ok, now, let's say your calling is such that rather than laying down to sleep at night, you are drawn to prayer instead of sleep, and you do that for 1,000 days sitting upright. Maura O'Halleran is the result of that. It's the best account of spiritual awakening I have come across as it's her diary, the living account of her transformation from wandering free spirit to canonized saint in Japan.
What Sivers said has an underlying message: there is a meaning to life: it is that there is no objective/inherent meaning. This is important to note because of the huge ramifications this has and has had in philosophy since Nietzsche.
Unfortunately, nihilism is circular and presupposes moral relativism.
When the video showed the slide saying "Life is ____" I paused and thought about it for a minute.
For me life is producing output when presented with some kind of input. If we are alive and that's pretty much what we do, life must be it. (not only man, but every animal I can think about)
Now, how are we alive and a computer problem isn't, I don't know. Maybe because our input comes directly from the natural world?
What is the meaning of life? As others said here, it's a question that seems illogical to be asked.
>But life itself is simply sunlight falling to earth if you think about it biochemically
Don't you think, that by same extension, car is just Gas/Fuel coming in from a Gas/Fuel station?
I am sorry, but I find most essays on the topic of 'meaning of life' escapist. Or rather answering a different question on how best to live life, with the assumption that the real meaning is unknowable.
None of these essays satisfy my need to know, what it is actually all about.
Talking about this essay, its excellent no doubt. But IMHO its misleading all the same.
You don't start skydiving by jumping off a plane by yourself with a parachute that you need to release at a certain altitude. There are intermediary steps and if you don't learn from your own mistakes because "nothing has inherent meaning" you're gonna have a bad time.
