The Meaning of Life

[ken]

Ken

Your head wasn't in the right place when you read that. I was using the socratic method.

I have never sat in any class room nor studied anything that teaches a subject called philosophy, so i do not know anything about any socratic method. Also, my head is on top of my shoulders where i would think would be the right place for it.

I wasn't saying that I am more than you, just asking you to imagine that I/you were a truly just creator, as it were. As such you are not a part of this planet and vastly more powerful than anything upon it. Given that circumstance would it be just for you to interfere in the lives of those upon it? If you could do anything, what would you do, and would it be just?

But the I in the question who am I? is already the truly just creator you are talking about. I do not have to imagine this. When I am talking from ken I use the small 'i' but when I am talking from what you call the truly just creator I use the big 'I'. I, am the collective of ALL. I, in the physical sense, is absolutely every physical thing, whilst, I, in the spiritual sense, is the Mind, of which there is only One that is always truly OPEN. What human beings generally refer to as the mind is only the individual thoughts within an individual human body.

I, the truly just creator, IS a part of this planet. Why would you think the I, the truly just creator, am not a part of this planet. I have already interfered in the lives of those upon this planet. What I have already done, which is obviously just, is I have given hominids the ability to keep evolving with intelligence, which is just the ability to learn, understand, and reason, anything (everything). This is what separates them from all the other animals. I have also given human beings free will, which is the ability to choose what they themselves want to do. If they want to discover how to become better people and more God-like, by learning from their wrong doing, or from what they prefer to label as "mistakes", then they are free to do that. They are also free to choose to do nothing of the sort and to continue on just doing wrong, and making the same old "mistakes", forever more.

I knew that you were going to say that taking away the lion's lunch wasn't just to the lion, but there are plenty of other things to eat. Surely you wouldn't consider it just to allow the child to be eaten. All life is equal in a way, but the loss of a child would be more devastating to its parents than the loss of a fawn would be to its parents. Its a grey area admittedly, but in such a situation your own values would govern your actions, and mine, mine.

My values are to ALL equally. I would NOT and do NOT intervene. I do not interfere in the way human beings would like Me to. I do not give beings free will to then go and interfere. Free will means you, human beings, have the complete and wholehearted freedom to choose whatever you want to do. If human parents want to feel devastated at the loss of a child, then so be it. If people want to imagine that the body they dwell in will not one day stop breathing and pumping blood, then they have the freedom to choose this. But what the parents of this child are probably more devastated about is the fact that they placed that child in that predicament where it could be eaten. If human beings WANT to create and bring children into this Life, then they have to take full responsibility for those children.

If you want to know what I would do, I would allow ALL things to evolve naturally, just the way I have done things, ALWAYS.

The “it” in that sentence is in reply to you telling me that my theory doesn't apply to all life, and I was telling you that “it” does.

I do not recall saying your theory does not apply to all life. What I recall doing however is asking you a question about how can a tree, which by the way is alive and a part of Life, be happy? You are the one saying the meaning of life is true happiness. I am still curios as to how your theory that the meaning of life is true happiness and how that relates to living things like flowers, trees, earth, et cetera? I just wonder how these alive and living things can be happy?

Most of the rest of what you say regarding contentment and true happiness is very good indeed. It is clear that you have done a good deal of work on yourself in the right direction. True happiness alludes you still because you haven't considered the nature of justness as it pertains to all possible life. You have clearly considered justness as it pertains to lower lifeforms, but how about higher ones?
If you could do anything, what would it be, and would it be just?

What I, the highest of life forms, that is ALL Life together as One, would do IS what I always do. That is inspire human beings to do what is right in Life. If, however, human beings do NOT want to listen to this, then what I would do, which is what I have always done, is allow them to freely do what they want to choose to do. I certainly do NOT make any one listen nor do anything that they do not freely want to listen to or do. But I certainly do not stop trying to be heard. I do this by continually learning how to better express, so that I can be better heard and better understood.

By the way I am pretty sure you will discover that I have considered the nature of justness of and to ALL of Life.

Higher lifeforms may not even exist, but you can still take an imaginary walk down that path.

Depending on your relativity of lifeforms to each other in relation to higher and lower ones only you know because you have not shared that with us yet. But to not just take an imaginary walk down that path allow Me to directly guide you to that path of the highest of lifeforms. This will lead you to Me, the Universe Its Self. I am, the collective of ALL things, bundled up into a package known as 'ALL there is' or more commonly known as the Universe, ItSelf. Once 'you' have reached this Awareness of Consciousness, then you will fully understand what is actually happening, right HERE and right NOW.

[ken]

Rhodnar, for some reason, many do not do well with the Socratic method, though I personally feel it of great use and value. But it usually ends up a waste of time, as many don't participate, for whatever reason, in the Q&A. Just my experience that I wanted to pass along. Cheers.

I am not sure how many actually noticed this but I fully participated in the Q&A by answering each and every question. I might not have given the answers human beings want nor seek, but I answer ALL questions for Me only. I, for one, LOVE this truly straight-forward, clarifying and opening Q&A because this is how learning and becoming wiser happens fastest. And that is why I am continually asking questions of others, as well as asking to be questioned and challenged about what I say, however and sadly, it is very rarely that I ever get either an answer or a challenging question asked back to Me.

[HexHammer]

True happiness is freedom from hate, fear, doubt, anger, jealousy, judgmentalism etc.
True happiness is understanding the nature of life, why things are the way that they are, why bad things happen etc.
True happiness is the meaning of life, the apex of life, everything.

This is poor logic.
1) you deal in such obscure absolutes.

2) there will always be bad things in life, it's just about how you deal with them, and how far down you allow things to drag you. Strong people can resist evils, but weak will succumb to them and let them consume them.

3) some live in happily ignorance.

4) many see happiness as a fulfilment of their desires.


You problem is your feeble logic, that you set goals that you can't achieve.

[TSBU]

I highly recomend to look for "the answer to life the universe and everything" in google.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+answer+to+life ... everything

[Skip]

The Socratic method works best when applied by someone who has actually examined his own premises and done the elementary deductions.
Sticking the word 'true' or any of its derivatives in front of a desired attribute doesn't make it any more real.

[Dalek Prime]

Rhodnar, for some reason, many do not do well with the Socratic method, though I personally feel it of great use and value. But it usually ends up a waste of time, as many don't participate, for whatever reason, in the Q&A. Just my experience that I wanted to pass along. Cheers.

I am not sure how many actually noticed this but I fully participated in the Q&A by answering each and every question. I might not have given the answers human beings want nor seek, but I answer ALL questions for Me only. I, for one, LOVE this truly straight-forward, clarifying and opening Q&A because this is how learning and becoming wiser happens fastest. And that is why I am continually asking questions of others, as well as asking to be questioned and challenged about what I say, however and sadly, it is very rarely that I ever get either an answer or a challenging question asked back to Me.

I'm praising you for your use of it. No criticism intended. It's an extremely instructive methodology, as you are aware.

[Dalek Prime]

The Socratic method works best when applied by someone who has actually examined his own premises and done the elementary deductions.
Sticking the word 'true' or any of its derivatives in front of a desired attribute doesn't make it any more real.

True. I hadn't followed the whole thread, and was speaking in generalities.

[Rhodnar]

Ken

Your head wasn't in the right place when you read that. I was using the socratic method.

I have never sat in any class room nor studied anything that teaches a subject called philosophy, so i do not know anything about any socratic method. Also, my head is on top of my shoulders where i would think would be the right place for it.

It's just an expression, like "Your head is up your ass" or "No skin off my nose", it's a fairly common linguistic tool.

Ken

The “it” in that sentence is in reply to you telling me that my theory doesn't apply to all life, and I was telling you that “it” does.

I do not recall saying your theory does not apply to all life. What I recall doing however is asking you a question about how can a tree, which by the way is alive and a part of Life, be happy? You are the one saying the meaning of life is true happiness. I am still curios as to how your theory that the meaning of life is true happiness and how that relates to living things like flowers, trees, earth, et cetera? I just wonder how these alive and living things can be happy?

You need to connect the dots a bit. I told you that a tree isn't sentient, but that it does support the sentient. I also told you that evolution can be viewed as a race of sorts. The tree went down a different evolutionary path to the human, but without the tree the human might not exist. The tree cannot be truly happy, but the human can. I'd clarify, but I have no intention of covering everything in that much detail.

I enjoyed the rest of it, but I would just like to check something.

Do you have any special powers?

True happiness is freedom from hate, fear, doubt, anger, jealousy, judgmentalism etc.
True happiness is understanding the nature of life, why things are the way that they are, why bad things happen etc.
True happiness is the meaning of life, the apex of life, everything.

This is poor logic.
1) you deal in such obscure absolutes.

2) there will always be bad things in life, it's just about how you deal with them, and how far down you allow things to drag you. Strong people can resist evils, but weak will succumb to them and let them consume them.

3) some live in happily ignorance.

4) many see happiness as a fulfilment of their desires.


You problem is your feeble logic, that you set goals that you can't achieve.

I pointed out that happiness is relative and therefore used the phrase "true happiness" to distinguish it from "perceived happiness". "Ignorance is bliss" is very true in and of itself, but what happens to bliss when ignorance is removed?
I achieved my goal a number of years ago.

The Socratic method works best when applied by someone who has actually examined his own premises and done the elementary deductions.
Sticking the word 'true' or any of its derivatives in front of a desired attribute doesn't make it any more real.

Hello again. I see that you have moved on from being obtuse, knit-picky, and rude and started trying to be insulting. Cheer up.

[Rhodnar]

Rhodnar, for some reason, many do not do well with the Socratic method, though I personally feel it of great use and value. But it usually ends up a waste of time, as many don't participate, for whatever reason, in the Q&A. Just my experience that I wanted to pass along. Cheers.

The Socratic method isn't best suited to this medium. The written word is absent of all the physical ques we use to attempt to derive meaning. That is to say that the written word is much more open to interpretation. “Have a nice day” could mean “Have a nice day” or “Drop dead” depending upon the readers frame of mind or the context. It also falls a bit flat because the writer doesn't receive visual cues from the reader either. However; I think that the Socratic methods biggest pitfall in this setting, is that people just read and don't bother taking the time to think. Understandable really, we're spoiled for choice of things to do.

[Skip]

I see that you have moved on from being obtuse, knit-picky, and rude and started trying to be insulting.

And you have not. Knit-picky?
Never mind - we're done.

[Rhodnar]

I see that you have moved on from being obtuse, knit-picky, and rude and started trying to be insulting.

And you have not. Knit-picky?
Never mind - we're done.

I have absolutely no animosity towards you and if that is your final word, I'll be sorry to see you go. It may well stem from the way that I choose to express myself, but I have a very logical brain and have covered every possible angle. So if I fail to communicate something well please feel free to ask for clarification.

An interesting point has been made regarding the nature of “true happiness”. I suppose that the simplest way to define what I mean by “true happiness” would be, happiness that cannot be taken from you (simplistic but it'll do for now).
As I have mentioned, happiness is relative. You can find happiness in many different ways, and to you any happiness, is “true”. It's a real emotion, you either feel it or you don't.

You may experience happiness:

Acquiring things.
Being in love.
Having fun.
Using stimulants/depressants.
Killing.
Risking your own life.
On and on and on....

However; all of these forms of happiness are dependent upon something else, and thus can be taken away or lost. “True happiness” is a state of being. It relies upon nothing external, and cannot be lost or taken away.

I don't want you to think that I live in a state of bliss. My emotions are completely intact, but under control. I can feel sad, but not depressed. I can feel a twinge of anger, suppress it, and turn it into something constructive. I can feel joy and enjoy it. Etc:

If your happiness depends upon anything else it isn't what I'm referring to when I use the term “true happiness”. Even if you say something like “I will only be truly happy when everybody else is truly happy too” (and know it to be true) you haven't found true happiness yet. For clarification...That would be my fondest wish, and would bring me immense joy, but if it isn't possible, it isn't possible.

That is where “truly just” comes in.

[ken]

Ken

Your head wasn't in the right place when you read that. I was using the socratic method.

I have never sat in any class room nor studied anything that teaches a subject called philosophy, so i do not know anything about any socratic method. Also, my head is on top of my shoulders where i would think would be the right place for it.

It's just an expression, like "Your head is up your ass" or "No skin off my nose", it's a fairly common linguistic tool.

I might be a very slow and simple one but i did understand that it was figurative language. I replied with literal language, especially in this type of forum, because philosophy is sometimes known as looking for truth or becoming wiser. We all know how hard it is to derive meaning, especially from the written word, and how much more open the written word is to mis/interpretation than the spoken word is with visual cues. I try my hardest here to be best understood so that I am not misinterpreted at all. It rarely works by the way. I try to literally use every word in the way that it literally means. This is hard enough to do because some words can have two very distinctly different meanings, and some words even have two completely opposite meanings, which makes the written words that are absent of physical ques even harder to interpret the readers intention or meaning correctly. So trying to be understood or interpreted correctly here is hard enough without adding any further and/or figurative language in to the equation. I know this might sound a very somber way to approach things here, but if a philosophy forum is not a place to learn how to express better in order to not be misinterpreted in any way so that I can be fully understood, then I do not know where else would be. To Me, being alive and living is about having fun, which i can have anywhere but in a philosophy forum I just seek to learn how to be heard and be fully understood once in my life. Once that is done then having fun with figurative language here also will take place for Me. But until then I try to write and look at every thing that is written as literally as I can so that I also can better understand what it is that others are trying to express also.

Long response to just say, I was guessing what you meant and I was right, but I do not think this is the right place for it. It takes so long to clarify the true intention of what is written literally, let alone when other things are written.

“Have a nice day” could mean “Have a nice day” or “Drop dead” depending upon the readers thought processes at the time, their mood, or the context in which it was written AND is being perceived. If absolutely every thing is written literally, then that makes being understood fully just that little bit easier.

I do not recall saying your theory does not apply to all life. What I recall doing however is asking you a question about how can a tree, which by the way is alive and a part of Life, be happy? You are the one saying the meaning of life is true happiness. I am still curios as to how your theory that the meaning of life is true happiness and how that relates to living things like flowers, trees, earth, et cetera? I just wonder how these alive and living things can be happy?

You need to connect the dots a bit.

I apologize for not assuming what you were saying, and asking for clarification through questions, but that is what I do. If you want Me to do all the work in trying to understand you fully, and not clarify anything before I jump to a conclusion of what you are saying, then I will do that. But will I then have to apologize also if my interpretation is not exactly what you were trying to express and meant?

I told you that a tree isn't sentient, but that it does support the sentient. I also told you that evolution can be viewed as a race of sorts. The tree went down a different evolutionary path to the human, but without the tree the human might not exist. The tree cannot be truly happy, but the human can. I'd clarify, but I have no intention of covering everything in that much detail.

Yes you did tell me that evolution was a race of sorts, which I did not understand at first, so I asked you to clarify, where the race is to exactly, which you failed to clarify. But only now I think you might be implying that the evolutionary race of sorts might be towards an Awareness or a Consciousness of Everything. This race, at the moment, being won by human beings compared to say trees? But only until you clarify exactly, then really I am only guessing what you are actually alluding to.

As for a tree, for example, which you say can not be truly happy but the human can, then does that imply if the meaning of life is true happiness, then does this really only apply to or for human beings, and therefore is not the meaning of life to or for ALL, living, things?

I enjoyed the rest of it, but I would just like to check something.

Do you have any special powers?

Great, I really do love clarifying questions. I hate it when people just make assumptions and/or jump to conclusions before they actually check.

I like to look at ALL things from a truly objective perspective. I can gain and see a much truer picture that way. So, looking at that sentence from a truly objective standpoint, the word 'you' can mean either one person or all people, of which 'ken' is the label given to one of those people. All people, including ken, has the exact same powers. The powers human beings have may be special compared to any other animal, but the same powers apply equally to all people. That power that human beings have, which is special to them only, is the ability to learn, understand, and reason, absolutely anything (everything). This power I call 'intelligence'. No other animal that I know of is intelligent, in this regard. Human beings have this powerful ability and share it equally. This power comes from and through the Mind, of which there is only One, and that One Mind is always OPEN. The ability to "have" an open Mind, as it is sometimes known, but which is not actually correct, is the ability to look from a truly open perspective, which comes only from the truly open Mind. This is what has allowed human beings to imagine, design, invent, create, learn, understand, and reason ALL of what human beings know now, and have created so far.

The ability to learn absolutely anything, which comes from the Mind is what gives ALL human beings, equally, the power to create. For example let us imagine that one human being learns how it is actually possible to create a truly peaceful world in which ALL can live in peace and harmony together. This ability or power did not come from anything special to that person, but from the special power that ALL human beings have. The reason some people come to learning, discovering, or understanding some things prior to others is not because they are anymore smarter, or anymore intelligent, nor have anymore special powers, but solely because of the knowledge that has already been obtained previously. NO person has any special knowledge than another. ALL people gain knowledge throughout their lives and NO person has any control over what knowledge they gained in the earlier part of their lives. ALL knowledge is gained from others. So, if any person comes to new or more knowledge and/or truth, then that is NOT because they have any "special" power to another person. They arrived at that from what they have previously experienced in Life, of which no child has control over what they experience, and thus nor what knowledge that they have gained and obtained. No person is more intelligent than another, but some people just use where intelligence comes from more or more often than others, where that place is, is the Mind.

However, if you are referring to 'I' when you asked, "Do you have any special powers?", then the answer to that is the 'I' (in the question who am 'I'?) is the Universe, It Self, and the only special power I have here is to always be Creating this Self through evolution. If a species happens to evolve with enough intelligence to work all this out, then that is because of HOW I am creating 'It', that is Everything. I am ALWAYS creating. I never created, then left for example. I am always right HERE. Through an evolving process I am always in Creation, right NOW.

In the spiritual sense 'I' am the truly open Mind. The creator but being an invisible completely open thing I am unable to store knowledge that is gained. That is the reason for human beings, or more importantly the human brain. Human brains collectively together are able to gather and store ALL knowledge.

I, the Mind, need human beings (and especially their brain) in order to observe, witness, see and understand the beauty that I Created and am creating, NOW. In the physical sense, 'I' am EVERY physical thing. I am Creating Everything, the Universe, NOW by allowing every physical thing the freedom to move about in any way, shape, and form that it wants to, thus forming and creating a constant-change Self, right NOW. The only power I, the Universe, have, which may be seen as being a special power is that because 'I' am ALL there is, then I am ALL powerful. NO other thing created Me, the Universe, and so NO other thing can control, move, change, or shape Me, besides Me. I, the Universe, am always in a constant-state of continual-change, through evolution, which is what Creation is.

However you may have been referring to another 'you', which is a totally subjective thing, from 'your' point of view. If i had to and was to take a guess at what you were referring to exactly, from this subjective viewpoint, then i would guess that rhodnar was referring to the writer of this, some would say, to long a reply. Most people presume the body that is typing this now is the writer, however, the body is just made up of physical genes, with the brain being just another one of those physical organs. To Me, though, the body or brain is not the writer nor person, the invisible thoughts and emotions within the physical human body is the person, who is the real one who is writing this. The physical body is just the physical thing to transcribe and/or translate what is occurring within, in thought. And there is certainly NO special powers that this person nor body has. Like all human bodies it weakens with age, usually far more quicker than the person inside wishes, so there is no special power there whatsoever. And, this person certainly has no special powers also. In fact the opposite might be true. The lack of ability to be fully understood in what i want to really communicate can at times feel so frustrating that it becomes near unbearable. The amount of effort i am putting in just to be heard and understood seems to be ridiculous for how simple and easy it is that I want to express.

So the short answer is, "NO". There is certainly no powers whatsoever outside of the Universe, or 'ALL there is', obviously. There is also no special powers within the Universe, which some of the same species do not have also.

[ken]

An interesting point has been made regarding the nature of “true happiness”. I suppose that the simplest way to define what I mean by “true happiness” would be, happiness that cannot be taken from you (simplistic but it'll do for now).
As I have mentioned, happiness is relative. You can find happiness in many different ways, and to you any happiness, is “true”. It's a real emotion, you either feel it or you don't.

You may experience happiness:

Acquiring things.
Being in love.
Having fun.
Using stimulants/depressants.
Killing.
Risking your own life.
On and on and on....

However; all of these forms of happiness are dependent upon something else, and thus can be taken away or lost. “True happiness” is a state of being. It relies upon nothing external, and cannot be lost or taken away.

Is there really actually a form of happiness that is not dependent upon something else. Are not ALL emotions dependent upon something else? I think it would be near impossible to just feel an emotion without absolutely nothing else in play. Even the ability to not feel an emotion at all is only achievable by something else, that is only done with and by thoughts.

Thoughts (plus emotions) arise from things external to the human body. That is the way human beings work. Thoughts can control emotions, but only once thoughts can be controlled fully, and this takes a while to conquer. But to think any emotion, including happiness, can be held and maintained even for a short while, let alone forever, while things are being seen, heard, felt, smelt, and/or tasted by the body, then I think that would be near impossible.

External to the body things are continually changing, AND, influencing the thoughts within the body. Thus the continual changing of thoughts. But even if the ability to control ALL emotions always by controlling ALL thoughts always was achieved, then I would still wonder what purpose that would serve a human being. It may be great and fantastic to sit in "true" happiness, but WHY? That human being will die one day anyway. To Me, the things going on external to a human body are the signposts of what the human being, dare I say it, "should" be doing. The emotions that do arise from external factors are signals for what the body does next, flee or fight for example. The thoughts that come from those external factors and emotions, are then signs of what the body will actually do next. Learning how to have full control over these behavioral thoughts is a good exercise to do. Because what the body actually does next is what creates 'the world' the way it is.

To sit there is a state of bliss or true happiness while the world is being taken away around one, with pollution, and while others are being killed and allowed die, from starvation, then I think is not really a good thing to do. If one really has the welfare and well-being of others, especially children, in consideration, then they will use the signposts external to them and signals within them to do what is right and needed in life.

I don't want you to think that I live in a state of bliss. My emotions are completely intact, but under control. I can feel sad, but not depressed. I can feel a twinge of anger, suppress it, and turn it into something constructive. I can feel joy and enjoy it. Etc:

How long can you stay in the state of being in "true happiness"?

If your happiness depends upon anything else it isn't what I'm referring to when I use the term “true happiness”. Even if you say something like “I will only be truly happy when everybody else is truly happy too” (and know it to be true) you haven't found true happiness yet.

Could you, and would you, really be in a state of true happiness if others are being harmed and damaged, and thus in pain and suffering all around you? Could you really sit there in any real state of happiness, let alone true happiness, while witnessing children, for example, being abused and dying of starvation around you?

For clarification...That would be my fondest wish, and would bring me immense joy, but if it isn't possible, it isn't possible.

Who says a state of everyone being truly happy is not possible?

To Me, all people can be in states of happiness and to varying degrees of happiness from moments to moments, but while some are still being abused and suffering then I am pretty sure most people would not be truly happy with this situation. When absolutely everyone is happy, like when living in peace and harmony with each other, then that is when true happiness is reached and felt. Being in this state of happiness is when everyone is being happy together. By the way I think this is very possible. But that might be because I know how living in peace and harmony with each other can be very easily and simply achieved.

That is where “truly just” comes in.

To Me, a way of life that everyone wants and is working towards together as One is where and when truly just comes in. If everyone is heading towards a truly peaceful and harmonious way of life and thus not abusing each other nor the planet they live on, and thus they are NOT destroying, losing, nor taking away this planet from others, in the future, then this i imagine would bring about a sense of achievement and accomplishment, which in turn brings with it a sense of fulfillment, which makes the state of being in happiness ever more truer, in a sense. Living in a way of life where absolutely everyone is truly happy in is the state of being in true happiness, that I would suggest.

[HexHammer]

I pointed out that happiness is relative and therefore used the phrase "true happiness" to distinguish it from "perceived happiness". "Ignorance is bliss" is very true in and of itself, but what happens to bliss when ignorance is removed?
I achieved my goal a number of years ago.

That's how YOU define true happiness, not how the dictionary does it. And the way you do it is farfetched.

[Rhodnar]

I pointed out that happiness is relative and therefore used the phrase "true happiness" to distinguish it from "perceived happiness". "Ignorance is bliss" is very true in and of itself, but what happens to bliss when ignorance is removed?
I achieved my goal a number of years ago.

That's how YOU define true happiness, not how the dictionary does it. And the way you do it is farfetched.

I did mention that my description was simplistic. The problem arises because it's akin to describing the colour blue to a being that cannot see. For example:
If I were in great pain, it would be hard to use the dictionary's definition of happiness to describe my condition, and yet I'd still be happy. It's a state of being not an emotion per se, but still an emotional state of being.

I suppose that it is far-fetched to someone who doesn't "know it", but it is attainable.