• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

What do you the purpose of human existance is?

Human existence is intrinsically meaningless, therefore we as humans must strive to create and fulfill our own meaning. See existentialism, absurdity...
 
being said:
Maybe there is no purpose and the only thing that wants there to be a purpose, is the human mind? Maybe (most likely) purpose in itself is just a product of human mind?
Click to expand...

I think the same, we are here by a very favorable, but random chain of events. We have no purpose we will contiune to ruin this planet with no hopes of finding a new one to shit on in the next 100 years and thats being very giving.

I don't know why Im in such a neagtive mood tonight :/
 
As we have seen, lack of empirical evidence is no reason not to believe something to be true.

One might think that the statement

'Murder is wrong', is true but there is no empirical evidence to prove this.

Hence, 'lacking empirical evidence is not a sufficient reason to believe something is untrue'

Therefore I cannot see the rationale that human life lacks purpose, simply because you lack empirical evidence for it.
 
we perceive that it lacks purpose, and perception is reality

or you perceive that it does, and it's the same thing

life is what you make it
 
AfterGlow said:
Why You Will Always Exist: Time Is 'On Demand'

Robert Lanza, M.D.
Scientist; Theoretician; Author, 'Biocentrism'
Posted: February 10, 2011 08:48 AM

link
Click to expand...

This article basically sums up my views on the matter. One interpretation of the Taoist Yin and Yang I always liked was the half of the universe that lies outside of you, and the half of the universe that lies within you.

Well, I liked this article except for the anti-science potshots, which are enough to put me off from pursuing more of this guy's writing. I think science is the best tool for making predictions about the material world, period. But I do not rule out the possibility that there are factors involved with the experience I call 'I' which don't really meet the definition of 'material', and that science may or may not be the best tools for understanding these.

I leave it at that, though. I probably have enough of a chance of knowing what (if anything) lies behind the curtain of right-here-right-now-ness, as a goldfish has of understanding what lies beyond its bowl. I think that mysticism may offer a glimpse of what's there. It's hard to say just how much, though.

The thing is, even if this body and brain indeed did evolve over millions of years of chance occurrences, that in no way rules out the possibility that I'm right here right now, living this life from the other side of these eyes and ears and brain, because some other form of sentient entity picked out this particular flesh as a puppet to wear, for some reason. This is what I mean when I say that science and spirituality are potentially compatible.

In short, there could be an externally bequeathed purpose for your life, whether or not there is such a purpose for human life as a whole.
 
Pythagoras said:
As we have seen, lack of empirical evidence is no reason not to believe something to be true.

One might think that the statement

'Murder is wrong', is true but there is no empirical evidence to prove this.
Click to expand...

Isn't the definition of murder an unlawful killing? Men make laws and laws are not the end-all of right and wrong. There is no empirical evidence that murder is wrong because it is not always wrong.

Pythagoras said:
Hence, 'lacking empirical evidence is not a sufficient reason to believe something is untrue'

Therefore I cannot see the rationale that human life lacks purpose, simply because you lack empirical evidence for it.
Click to expand...

What shall I base it on then, faith? Maybe that's good enough for you, but it isn't for me. I use gut instinct when I have to make a quick decision based on limited info, but my beliefs are based on facts borne out by empirical evidence. You can choose to believe whatever you want based on nothing.
 
Draigan said:
There is no inherent human purpose. Purpose is a man made concept. If we decide that there is a purpose for us, than there is. If we decide there isn't a purpose, than there is not.

The rest of the universe doesn't use the concept purpose, only us. Our purpose is what we see of it. That is why it is fair to say there is no inherent human purpose.
Click to expand...
I agree -- and also, there's no inherent human purposelessness.

Life can appear purposeless and empty if one seeks to impose a purpose on it. Otherwise, every moment of life can be its own purpose and meaning.
 
Draigan said:
Not exactly sure what you are saying, but I think I catch the drift. I would say that time is a man made thing for instance. There obviously is some sort of motion and transition but the act of measuring is all our own thing. It doesn't actually happen out there.
Click to expand...
Moreover, the act of measuring it (and/or thinking about it) is timeless.

For example, I may have a memory of a past event, then glance at the clock and remember that I have an appointment to make in the future. All these events occur "in the here and now" as a linear flow -- time isn't needed in order to "measure" time ;).
 
Well I don't know what the purpose of consciousness is, which stretches far beyond human existence, which has no more purpose than any other form of consciousness. We aren't the center of the universe, we evolved from microscopic organisms and the evolutionary path just kind of 'stumbled' or made its way up the chain until it hit us. Just like it does with every other living species in existence. It will go far past us, never stopping, were just a blip along the way.

To me the real question is what is the meaning of consciousness, why is the universe seemingly alive, able to create this timeless fractal of existence.

Hmm, it seems I've fallen a bit off my rocker over the years :D
 
@ Afterglow

There is no empirical evidence that murder is wrong because it is not always wrong.
Click to expand...

Interesting, from what moral framework did you work through to arrive at this statement of fact?

Again your justification is a bit wobbly.

There is no empirical evidence that 'x' is wrong because 'x' is not always wrong
So the lack of empirical evidence for 'x' being false is because 'x' has an variable truth value.
I don't see that statements with variable truth values necessarily lack empirical evidence. Therefore your justification as why there is no empirical evidence for moral claims is not only weak, but perfectly illustrates my point.

You can choose to believe whatever you want based on nothing.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that, It seems to me all beliefs are rooted in something, however bizarre that something may be, but my personal beliefs are based on a lifetime of both experience, axiomatic and apriori truths, and careful study thereof. I trust this exchange has broadened your understanding of epistemology, and highlighted the folly in adhering to Scientism. I hope I have highlighted other categories of thought that explicate why empirical knowledge is not the sole category of epistemological enquiry.:)

SAPERE AUDE !
 
Pythagoras said:
How do you justify that belief?
Click to expand...

because "purpose" is fundamentally a value judgment and there is no inherent value in any one thing. you can assert the "general tendency" via empirical routes to display to me what most peoples' "purposes" are and create a sort of umbrella generalization for the "purpose of humanity" - but at the core "inherent purpose" is a sort of contradiction as purpose is not inherent in anything, it is created by the experiencer.

You can tell me that empirical evidence suggests that the purpose of humanity is to further consciousness (via many routes, reproductive fecundity, etc) - and i can tell you that's not a purpose, that's a tendency of the species. The human species tends to further consciousness. What makes that it's purpose, though? For the most, it's a hollow term for me in the context of philosophy and in the same realm as most ethics, because they cannot be constituted on any sort of logical solidity. think the is/ought gap; this really applies to ALL value judgments in an altered sort of way.
 
Pythagoras said:
@ Afterglow

Interesting, from what moral framework did you work through to arrive at this statement of fact?
Click to expand...

My own. I thought I explained it clearly. Men makes laws. Men are fallible and laws change over time. The illegal taking of a human life is not morally wrong simply because it is against the law. In the US, we take human life to punish criminals. In other countries, that it illegal. Is it ok in the US simply because it is legal?

Pythagoras said:
Again your justification is a bit wobbly.
Click to expand...

There is no empirical evidence that 'x' is wrong because 'x' is not always wrong
So the lack of empirical evidence for 'x' being false is because 'x' has an variable truth value.
I don't see that statements with variable truth values necessarily lack empirical evidence. Therefore your justification as why there is no empirical evidence for moral claims is not only weak, but perfectly illustrates my point.[/quote]

That's not exactly my position. For me to believe in something, I want solid proof to justify the belief. Until I have solid proof, I can only entertain the possibility. But even then, I need more than just a hunch.

Pythagoras said:
Not so sure about that, It seems to me all beliefs are rooted in something, however bizarre that something may be, but my personal beliefs are based on a lifetime of both experience, axiomatic and apriori truths, and careful study thereof. I trust this exchange has broadened your understanding of epistemology, and highlighted the folly in adhering to Scientism. I hope I have highlighted other categories of thought that explicate why empirical knowledge is not the sole category of epistemological enquiry.:)

SAPERE AUDE !
Click to expand...

Yes, I've enjoyed the exchange of opinions! But you have not changed my mind. :)
 
AfterGlow said:
My own. I thought I explained it clearly. Men makes laws. Men are fallible and laws change over time. The illegal taking of a human life is not morally wrong simply because it is against the law. In the US, we take human life to punish criminals. In other countries, that it illegal. Is it ok in the US simply because it is legal?



There is no empirical evidence that 'x' is wrong because 'x' is not always wrong
So the lack of empirical evidence for 'x' being false is because 'x' has an variable truth value.
I don't see that statements with variable truth values necessarily lack empirical evidence. Therefore your justification as why there is no empirical evidence for moral claims is not only weak, but perfectly illustrates my point.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly my position. For me to believe in something, I want solid proof to justify the belief. Until I have solid proof, I can only entertain the possibility. But even then, I need more than just a hunch.



Yes, I've enjoyed the exchange of opinions! But you have not changed my mind. :)[/QUOTE]

that is incredibly shaky justification. circular reasoning. in attempting to prove that x cannot be proven to be wrong, you assert that x is not wrong. but that is tied into what you are trying to prove in the first place - you can't simply say "there is no evidence x is wrong because x isn't wrong." you're not getting at the fundamental meaning behind what it means to be wrong.
 
IamMe90 said:
because "purpose" is fundamentally a value judgment and there is no inherent value in any one thing. you can assert the "general tendency" via empirical routes to display to me what most peoples' "purposes" are and create a sort of umbrella generalization for the "purpose of humanity" - but at the core "inherent purpose" is a sort of contradiction as purpose is not inherent in anything, it is created by the experiencer.

You can tell me that empirical evidence suggests that the purpose of humanity is to further consciousness (via many routes, reproductive fecundity, etc) - and i can tell you that's not a purpose, that's a tendency of the species. The human species tends to further consciousness. What makes that it's purpose, though? For the most, it's a hollow term for me in the context of philosophy and in the same realm as most ethics, because they cannot be constituted on any sort of logical solidity. think the is/ought gap; this really applies to ALL value judgments in an altered sort of way.
Click to expand...


I think the question turns on what one interprets 'inherent to be'.

As for the is/ought distinction I have just spent the last few posts trying to illustrate this re: moral claims and empirical evidence.

Metaphysics, Ethics and philosophy of religion remain part of the Western philosophic syllabus, and logic, we now discover is more malleable than syllogistic forms.

I agree it is a highly subjective issue, and was temporarily sidetracked into explicating the (to my mind) folly of Scientism.

I believe that existence has an inherent purpose, I feel justified in this belief but I certainly never intimated (I hope) that I could prove this belief scientifically.:)
 
IamMe90 said:
That's not exactly my position. For me to believe in something, I want solid proof to justify the belief. Until I have solid proof, I can only entertain the possibility. But even then, I need more than just a hunch.



Yes, I've enjoyed the exchange of opinions! But you have not changed my mind. :)
Click to expand...

that is incredibly shaky justification. circular reasoning. in attempting to prove that x cannot be proven to be wrong, you assert that x is not wrong. but that is tied into what you are trying to prove in the first place - you can't simply say "there is no evidence x is wrong because x isn't wrong." you're not getting at the fundamental meaning behind what it means to be wrong.[/QUOTE]


@Afterglow

I apologise if I misrepresented your statement:

Quote "There is no empirical evidence that murder is wrong because it is not always wrong. "

By using the shortened form 'x' as above, though I thought I was fair in my deconstruction.

A pleasurable dialectic all the same. I hope to return to the topic once I've done some 'real-world' work :\:\:\

NUNC DIMITIS
 
the only purpose humans have is the one they share in common with the entire universe and that is to pass on information, whether your talking about trees or photons or donald rumsfeld
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top