What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5136
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:16 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:11 pm
You're not paying attention, the answer is "reciprocity."
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:11 pm
Non-answer. You forgot the follow-up question.
The answer is Reciprocity!
Sorry, that's STILL no answer. And it doesn't become an answer through mere repetition, nor through ad hominems.

You can't show that anyone owes anyone reciprocity.
No one can initially owe anyone reciprocity, rather it's what one can expect if they step over the line, or give self sacrificially! So it can be either good or bad dependent upon ones particular perspective. Reciprocity is bound by what it is that one does to another! Here let me help you again, with some knowledge you seem to be lacking:

reciprocity [res-uh-pros-i-tee]
noun
1. a reciprocal state or relation.
2. reciprocation; mutual exchange.


So it's never causation, only ever effect. A reciprocal can only ever be the REVERSE of the "FIRST!" Think sequentially!
It's not when I give you the coat off my back to keep you warm, it's when you do the same for me. And it's not when you lie to me, it's when I then lie to you! Get it? It can only be a reciprocal after the initial.


Rather, what best suits the individual amoralist is if others practice reciprocity, but the individual amoralist does not have to.
As usual, you're "severely confused!" NO ONE, is BOUND to not do something to someone, due to ANY WORDS of ANY human or ANY, so called, gods, just because they don't WANT it done to them, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS they BELIEVE! AGAIN you're speaking of ENFORCEMENT which I covered above. The LAW of the land and it's ENFORCEMENT are COMPLETELY two DIFFERENT things! Capeesh? I mean, are you lying again, or just mentally deficient?

That way, he gets all the nachos, and he pays none out. He wins.
No he gets punched in the face and goes to jail, PAY ATTENTION! I know you're slow, so reread my posts if you have to! Obviously you're either a liar or a fool, which is it? Both?

So self-interest is not to play the reciprocity game, but rather to hope that others do, while not being bound by it yourself.
Then he goes to jail and ROTS, as ENFORCEMENT steps into IC's unfortunate little world of lies and/or stupidity.

What in Atheism tells us that he is a "bad" person for knowing his own best self-interest and acting on that, rather than agreeing to play the "reciprocity" game?
ANYONE that doesn't already know the ANIMAL RULES, set down SO LONG AGO in "STONE" (age), of RECIPROCITY, is TOUCHED indeed! Put them in the loony bin for their and others safety! Apply to you, does it? ;-)
How old are you; as you seem to not to be capable of keeping human concepts straight? Are you healthy?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4208
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:05 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:00 pm
What in Atheism tells us that he is a "bad" person for knowing his own best self-interest and acting on that, rather than agreeing to play the "reciprocity" game?
ANYONE that doesn't already know the ANIMAL RULES, set down SO LONG AGO in "STONE" (age), of RECIPROCITY, is TOUCHED indeed! Put them in the loony bin for their and others safety! Apply to you, does it? ;-)
This isn't an answer. Animals have no "rules." They have only instinct; and even were they to defy that instinct (supposing one even could), they would not thereby become "bad" for doing so. No such terms apply to mere "animals."

But rules "set in stone," you say? There is only one set of rules that was ever literally set in stone, and even those are rules you do not believe are objective -- the Ten Commandments. So what "in stone" do you mean? In what "stone" are they written, and what do they say?

As for "reciprocity," so far you have failed to show that it is compulsory, or morally obligatory, or objectively right (choose your term) for anyone at all. The fact that you happen to like it, or that you want to TYPE IN CAPS does not go even one stroke towards showing it is necessary. Rather, survival of the fittest, or "Devil-take-the-hindmost" if you prefer, is a far more obvious way to operate in a materialist, Darwinian universe.

Show why it's "wrong."

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5136
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:05 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:00 pm
What in Atheism tells us that he is a "bad" person for knowing his own best self-interest and acting on that, rather than agreeing to play the "reciprocity" game?
ANYONE that doesn't already know the ANIMAL RULES, set down SO LONG AGO in "STONE" (age), of RECIPROCITY, is TOUCHED indeed! Put them in the loony bin for their and others safety! Apply to you, does it? ;-)
This isn't an answer. Animals have no "rules."
Yes they do, ever heard the phrase, "THE LAWS OF THE JUNGLE!" I rest my case! Whether you like it or not Humans are in fact animals!

They have only instinct; and even were they to defy that instinct (supposing one even could), they would not thereby become "bad" for doing so. No such terms apply to mere "animals."
Incorrect! Instincts are in fact rules, it matters not that they are intrinsic to the particular animal, they are still rules that were gained through evolution!

But rules "set in stone," you say? There is only one set of rules that was ever literally set in stone, and even those are rules you do not believe are objective -- the Ten Commandments. So what "in stone" do you mean? In what "stone" are they written, and what do they say?
Did you ignore my inclusion of (age) just so you could plug one of you fanciful beliefs. So what, that so the story goes, that Moses chiseled commandments in stone tablets, yes he did, he was up there for a very long time so the story goes. Remember that the people were worshiping golden idols when he finally returned. They had fashioned all sorts of golden ornaments while he fashioned stone tablets.

The stone (age) set reciprocity in that age. That's how long it's been around.


As for "reciprocity," so far you have failed to show that it is compulsory,
Incorrect, in understanding the dynamics of reciprocity, one sees that it's compulsory. That is if one expects to be treated well by others.

or morally obligatory,
It speaks directly to morals, as it defines the constraints of the principles (rules of right conduct) that all must live by if they expect them in return. Reciprocity is all about equality. You just want to be an elite which is why you cling to your man made gods!

or objectively right (choose your term) for anyone at all.
Incorrect, see immediately above. Your fear is so extreme that it severely blinds you to the truth.

The fact that you happen to like it,
It's just the best thing out there; Period!

or that you want to TYPE IN CAPS
Childish response as you know fully well why I typed in some caps. Namely that you ignore the most important parts of ones argument, which is why you're a liar! You're taking the netiquette rule, that I helped to create, back in the nets early days, and distorting it to suit your selfish needs, banking on others that may believe they know it's purpose, that you're hoping, shall rally in your support. Really? Such a shallow supposed victory you'll accept, even though it's off topic, pitiful! But then your arguments seem to always be that pathetic. You're certainly not an intellectual.

does not go even one stroke towards showing it is necessary.
Sure it does, you just fear anything that you see as superseding your phony god.

Rather, survival of the fittest, or "Devil-take-the-hindmost" if you prefer,
This is a classic example of why you're seemingly a liar, as I've already covered this and you know it, again pathetic, if that's the best you can do.

is a far more obvious way to operate in a materialist, Darwinian universe.
Not at all. Unfortunately you're seemingly far to ignorant of the historical facts to maintain a coherent argument. Which is why I see you as a liar, as I have a very tough time indeed believing you lack so much knowledge. How old are you? Seriously!

Show why it's "wrong."
I have time and time again, though either your skull is infinitely thick or you've lived a life of lies for so long, you're incapable of doing anything else.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4208
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:40 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:09 pm
I have time and time again,
Ranting, railing...trolling...but never answering. I see that's your thing.

Well, be well. I suppose we all have to have a hobby. :wink:

jayjacobus
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:33 pm

Life can be thought of as deterministic not purposeful. So life emerged from physics and chemistry and biology.but meaning is what each individual makes of his or her own life. There can be a lot of meaning there.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Viveka » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:43 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:33 pm
Life can be thought of as deterministic not purposeful. So life emerged from physics and chemistry and biology.but meaning is what each individual makes of his or her own life. There can be a lot of meaning there.
How exactly is there meaning in a deterministic universe?

jayjacobus
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by jayjacobus » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:49 am

Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:43 pm

How exactly is there meaning in a deterministic universe?
I understand cause and effect. Do you see meaning in only random unexplanable phenomenon?

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Viveka » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:10 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:49 am
Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:43 pm

How exactly is there meaning in a deterministic universe?
I understand cause and effect. Do you see meaning in only random unexplanable phenomenon?
Do you see meaning in appreciating a piece of art you made, but yet you had no part in making it?

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5136
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:40 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:09 pm
I have time and time again,
Ranting, railing...trolling...but never answering. I see that's your thing.
Luckily for everyone on the planet, your assertions are in no way representative of anything outside your head.

Well, be well. I suppose we all have to have a hobby. :wink:
If only you practiced honesty, and didn't try to pull the, "my hand is quicker than the eye," routine with your lack luster diatribe, you might be worth talking to.

Dispense with the lies, the lame attempts at hitting below the belt, and you may actually learn something for a change. I've never said that there can't be a creator of the universe, just that man can't yet know for certain, that we're still far too immature. That the stories told so long ago by archaic dead men, have been proven to be so full of holes, that the state of the stories are in constant revision.
You at least say you believe, that a creator of everything would have favorites, and that you're one of them. I know that a creator of everything would treat everyone equally, for their sake alone, if in fact what it had to say was very important to them, and not filter it down through mostly liars, which is what humans have proven to mostly be, and all for their selfish gain at the expense of others.

So to be honest, anyone that believes in such things, as presented, can only seem a fool, as the presentation is dated and full of obvious holes!

But as to the topic at hand:

Only man assigns meaning to anything, and as to 'life' he is seemingly very confused.


jayjacobus
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:05 pm

delete
Last edited by jayjacobus on Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jayjacobus
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:08 pm

There are sometimes competing notions neither of which are facts, Intelligent design and scientific existence are two competing notions. Did life, in all its complexities, come from an intelligent source or did it develop by chance and step by step? Both notions are implausible but each proponent sees their way as the only possible way. Yet from my own thinking each is an un-provable notion. This leaves me a skeptic without an alternative. I can't support one side over the other. Yet I will argue against dogmatism from either side.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5136
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:06 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:08 pm
There are sometimes competing notions neither of which are facts, Intelligent design and scientific existence are two competing notions. Did life, in all its complexities, come from an intelligent source or did it develop by chance and step by step? Both notions are implausible but each proponent sees their way as the only possible way. Yet from my own thinking each is an un-provable notion. This leaves me a skeptic without an alternative. I can't support one side over the other. Yet I will argue against dogmatism from either side.
Join the club, my friend. I've decided I'm agnostic for that very reason. I would say that, "I know,' that neither an atheist can 'prove' there is no creator, and that a theist cannot 'prove' his god exists.

So as to the argument, I sit on the fence, which is nice, because that means my vision is at a higher elevation, so I can see much farther than either an atheist or a theist. ;-)


Happy Holidays! ;-)

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1587
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:32 pm

The meaning of life is a poorly articulated question made up by immature philosophers.

You cannot correctly answer a poorly formed question.

The correct question is.

"Is life created with a purpose, or did it happen by just chance/luck or dumb nature?"

"And if it is created with a purpose, what what the purpose behind it?"

"If it was created by just dumb luck or whatever, then what are the scientific causes of how it occured? And what comes next? And if it is dumb luck, why does pleasure of the organism just so happen correlate with pleasure of the consciousness?"

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:25 pm

I am an absurdist so do not think there is any objective meaning to life only the subjective meaning one gives to their own life
You are born you live you die and then you stay dead forever. That is the basic mechanics of it. And as far as God is concerned
I do not think he actually exists but given as I am an apatheist it makes absolutely no difference to me whether or not he does

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Viveka » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:33 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:08 pm
There are sometimes competing notions neither of which are facts, Intelligent design and scientific existence are two competing notions. Did life, in all its complexities, come from an intelligent source or did it develop by chance and step by step? Both notions are implausible but each proponent sees their way as the only possible way. Yet from my own thinking each is an un-provable notion. This leaves me a skeptic without an alternative. I can't support one side over the other. Yet I will argue against dogmatism from either side.
While Intelligent Design is 'This could not have happened for such and such reason because of irreducible complexity' while Evolution against this is a 'well this COULD have happened but we DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN because there are NO INTERMEDIATES of Irreducible Complexity.' Therefore, I believe Intelligent Design to have the upper hand due to such.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests