The meaning of life

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

promethean75 wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:24 pm "you', adult human beings, are being FAKE a great percentage of the time."

oh snap it's language analysis time. u see how Age said 'adult' human beings and not just human beings?
I thought MOST here had ALREADY NOTICED that I OBVIOUSLY USE the 'adult human beings' term or phrase, FAR MORE OFTEN than I USE the 'human being' term or phrase. Especially when I AM BEING 'critical', as "harbal" would call 'it'.
promethean75 wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:24 pm this could mean that he/she is relatively young. how. well here's the same effect; when white people talk about black people to other white people, they usually say 'the black guy/girl', and vice versa.
MOST 'posters' USUALLY picked up on what 'you', "promethean75", are just 'now' SEEING, the first few times I wrote like that. Are 'you' SURE 'you' REALLY DO KNOW a LOT about 'psychology' as you PROFESS TO?
promethean75 wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:24 pm we unconsciously indicate a difference in type in such phrasing if there is difference enough to qualify another subdivision of types.
Well considering the Fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NO so-called 'white' NOR 'black' 'person' YOUR EXAMPLE here is NOT a very good one AT ALL.
promethean75 wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:24 pm if Age were thirty he would have just said 'human beings' and included himself. but he's much younger, and to him there are two types of human beings. human beings (of which he is) and adult human beings (of which he is not).
LOL Are 'you' SURE 'you' KNOW even a LITTLE BIT about 'psychology'?
promethean75 wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:24 pm see what i did there?

in the same way, if the speaker were black, he/she would have just said 'person' or 'guy/girl' when refering to a black person.
'you' are NOT REALLY SHOWING ANY 'thing' that just about ALL 'posters' here had ALREADY WORKED OUT, and a WHILE AGO now.

'you' also could NOT be MORE Wrong even if you WANTED TO BE.
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:31 pm
bobmax wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:19 pm I am not a whole of parts.

Can you really think you are a composition of distinct parts?
The moment you start deciding that one part is bad, should not be expressed, etc., you've got parts. You have an internal struggle. Ultimately, at root they are of the same whole. You can punch yourself in the face. This is like that but less obvious.
Where parts of you deny the truth of other parts of yourself?
Sure, people obviously angry can deny this and believe it themselves. Or, part of them believes it and to do this they have to cut off awareness of the anger.

I don't see this as binary. You can have parts that are also not parts. These are words we are using, doing our best. So, yes absolutely we have parts. And at the same time, yup we are simply a whole. Both descriptions miss something because language is a tool and a fuzzy fallible one.
'Language' is only a so-called 'fuzzy fallible' tool when used Incorrectly.

SEE, it is WHEN words, and their definitions, or 'language', is USED Correctly, then 'language' 'paints', 'illustrates', or 'DRAWS' thee ACTUAL and Truly IRREFUTABLE Picture of ALL-THERE-IS.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:31 pm
What you truly are is one!
Otherwise you simply wouldn't be.
I think it's more complicted than that.
Reality cannot be false, because falsehood is non-being.
Nope. False and true are words used to describe if something is accurate about something else. Of course parts of reality can be false. You think some of my assertions are false.
While reality is being.
Reality is true by definition.
No, it's not. Statements may be true or false. Reality is real by definition.
And if you look at definitions of reality there will talk about existing, for example, not true.
You try to think of something real that is in itself false...
It's impossible!
I've had false friends who said false things and falsely pretended to be being kind when in fact they were being sadistic. And some strangers...man, they could be false.
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

bobmax wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 5:48 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:31 pm
bobmax wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:19 pm Reality cannot be false, because falsehood is non-being.
Nope. False and true are words used to describe if something is accurate about something else. Of course parts of reality can be false. You think some of my assertions are false.
Your claims are never false in themselves.
Because nothing is ever false in itself.

Falsehood is always in the eventual lack of agreement with something else.
As you say.

However, attention must be paid to the fact that there are two distinct levels of truth.

One is the truth of being there, that is, of agreement or otherwise between things.
This truth is such only if it denies any possible falsehood to the contrary.
This truth does not exist by itself. Because it requires in fact to continually deny any possible falsification.

The other is instead the truth of the thing in itself.
This truth does not need anything, it does not need to deny anything, because it is self-sufficient.
It is therefore not confronted with any falsehood.
It is the absolute Truth.

And it is Being.
In fact Being is being True.

And it is the negation of the negation. As it no longer denies anything.
Will you provide example/s of the differences between the two so-called 'levels of truth'?

And, how is ANY one to KNOW which 'truth', or which 'level of truth', you are actually talking about when you write the same word the EXACT SAME way?
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 7:44 pm
promethean75 wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:24 pm "you', adult human beings, are being FAKE a great percentage of the time."

u see how Age said 'adult' human beings and not just human beings? this could mean that he/she is relatively young.
Yes. However, Age/Ken has been writing here for many years, so I'm guessing his statements are a product of his mentality, not his actual 'age'. 8)

He seems to see himself differently than the human race -- which is not so unusual for many people to feel about themselves -- but he takes it to an extreme, evidenced by his constant 'blaming' and accusational tone, and delusions of knowing more than everyone else, so there appears to be some kind of mental imbalance from trauma.
LOL

Here we have ANOTHER example of an adult human being who does NOT and will NOT accept and take RESPONSIBILITY.

If adult human beings are NOT TO BLAME for their mis/behaviors, then WHO IS? Or, is this one STILL SO DELUSIONAL that 'it' WILL CONTINUE to BLAME "others" for what 'it' SAYS and DOES?

And, if my ACCUSATIONS are False, Wrong, or Incorrect, then just say so AND explain WHY. Your constant accusational tone only SHOWS and PROVES your extremeness, correct?

I have NEVER even SUGGESTED that I know MORE than ANY one else. This is just ANOTHER FRAGMENT of "lacewing's" IMAGINATION and DELUSIONS from compulsively wanting to BELIEVE that 'its' OWN ASSUMPTIONS are true, right, AND correct.

Name an adult who does NOT have some so-called 'mental imbalance from trauma', "lacewing". Would 'you' like to START with "your" 'self'? Do you BELIEVE that 'you' do NOT have some sort of 'mental imbalance' for ANY reason?

If yes, then this would imply that it is 'you' who BELIEVES that 'you' know MORE, have MORE insight, or have a way of KNOWING what is RIGHT MORE than ANY one else.

But, YET AGAIN, 'you' WILL NOT provide absolutely ANY further CLARITY here. 'you' WILL just MAKE THE CLAIMS, and then RUN AWAY TO HIDE, AS USUAL.
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:11 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:53 am The meaning of life, it has no purpose; bar a series of Monty Pythons flying Circus.
What is "meaning" and "purpose" to then say whether life has it or not?

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:26 am Because in contrast to life-giving stars, black holes are seen as harbingers of death and destruction. They form when huge stars die and their gravitational pull is so extreme that they act as giant cosmic trap doors.

So the meaning of life is to die.
Harbal wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:53 am
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:26 am
So the meaning of life is to die.
I'm working on that, but I think it's important not to rush it. I want to get it right.
This doesn't follow. Not all stars become black holes. What makes the inevitable death of an individual it's meaning and/or purpose when there are many other characteristics of a particular individual other than it's death? Why the focus on the characteristic of death and not the individual's other attributes and consequences of their actions as their meaning or purpose?
Because "dontaskme" really, really, really WISHES 'it' was NOT living and NEVER lived, that is WHY the focus on the characteristic of 'death'.
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:11 pm Even though your body no longer exists, the effects of your actions persist (butterfly effect). Say your great great great grandchild made the discovery that faster than light travel is possible, which then allows humans to leave the solar system and populate the galaxy. Even though others contributed to your great great great grandchild's existence, you were a necessary component (just like your child, grandchild, etc., are also necessary components) to their existence and the discovery of FTL travel.
The faster than light travel being a possibility has already been discovered.
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:11 pm When stars explode they seed the galaxy with the heavier elements necessary for forming new planets and new life and all the effects that come with that process. Why would we focus on the star's death as it's meaning or purpose when it's existence continues to perpetuate change? Can stars, and life, have more than one meaning or purpose?
The could be as many meanings or purposes as there are 'meaning and/or purposeful thinking' beings, and even MORE. But, ULTIMATELY, there can ONLY be just One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose'.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 14561
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:23 am But, ULTIMATELY, there can ONLY be just One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose'.
Will you tell THE FORUM what that '' One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose'' IS?
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:57 am
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:23 am But, ULTIMATELY, there can ONLY be just One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose'.
Will you tell THE FORUM what that '' One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose'' IS?
Yes.

'That', which absolutely EVERY one agrees with and accepts.

If ANY one is INTERESTED we can MOVE ALONG and PROGRESS from here.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 14561
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Dontaskme »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:57 am Will you tell THE FORUM what that '' One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose'' IS?
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:57 am Yes.

'That', which absolutely EVERY one agrees with and accepts.

But you previously stated there could be as many meanings or purposes as there are 'meaning and/or purposeful thinking' beings, and even MORE.

Then how is it possible for the 'assumed' many meanings or purposes as there are 'thinking beings'.. to then become just One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose' ?

How does the many meanings or purposes as there are 'meaning and/or purposeful thinking' beings, and even MORE - Ultimately become just ONE FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose' ?
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:17 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:57 am Will you tell THE FORUM what that '' One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose'' IS?
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:57 am Yes.

'That', which absolutely EVERY one agrees with and accepts.

But you previously stated there could be as many meanings or purposes as there are 'meaning and/or purposeful thinking' beings, and even MORE.
Yes I DID. So, 'you' are Right here.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:17 pm Then how is it possible for the 'assumed' many meanings or purposes as there are 'thinking beings'.. to then become just One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose' ?
VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:17 pm How does the many meanings or purposes as there are 'meaning and/or purposeful thinking' beings, and even MORE - Ultimately become just ONE FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose' ?
The EXACT SAME WAY, ALL the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge is FOUND, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD. That is through absolute Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to CHANGE, for the better, THEN through AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 14561
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:39 pm The EXACT SAME WAY, ALL the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge is FOUND, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD. That is through absolute Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to CHANGE, for the better, THEN through AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.
So are you saying that the absolute meaning of life is for 'every one' to want to change for the better - and would that be thee actual Honest and Open meaning of life for everybody?

And what about someone who doesn't subscribe to any meaning or purpose to their life, rather, they would prefer it not to be happening at all. Would that person be telling a truth or a lie as to the meaning and purpose of life?
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:23 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:39 pm The EXACT SAME WAY, ALL the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge is FOUND, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD. That is through absolute Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to CHANGE, for the better, THEN through AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.
So are you saying that the absolute meaning of life is for 'every one' to want to change for the better - and would that be thee actual Honest and Open meaning of life for everybody?
NO.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:23 pm And what about someone who doesn't subscribe to any meaning or purpose to their life, rather, they would prefer it not to be happening at all.
When did 'this' CHANGE to be about the meaning or purpose to 'their' life?

The topic title of this thread was about 'the meaning of life'. Which is OBVIOUSLY a VERY DIFFERENT thing.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:23 pm Would that person be telling a truth or a lie as to the meaning and purpose of life?
I do NOT know. What would you SAY and CLAIM here, would that person be telling a truth or a lie, as to the meaning and purpose of life?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 6260
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Harbal »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:34 am Okay. Do you think human beings, or some human beings, or no human beings would change their behavior as a result of being subjected to lectures?

And, if you think some or all human beings would, then would that be to all or just some lectures?
I think most human beings could be persuaded to change their behaviour to some extent under certain circumstances.
So, to you, do ALL species of animal behave according to 'their natures'?
It seems to me that they couldn't do otherwise, but perhaps you know differently.
Either way, what is the DIFFERENCE between the human beings animal's 'nature' and the hedgehog's 'nature'?
The main difference, I suppose, is the human being's ability to modify its behaviour through rational thought.
Was it only the 'very sadly' words, which 'implied' the 'criticism' here, or were there other indicators?

If the latter, then what were they?
No, it wasn't only 'very sadly' that implied criticism. It was the general feel of the sentence, for various reasons, that implied it. I don't think I am able to satisfactorily explain what those reasons are, as I am only aware of them intuitively, rather than analytically.
Also, is it possible to SHOW and REVEAL the FAULTS and FLAWS from the human being's 'nature' WITHOUT 'implying' a sense of 'criticism'?

If yes, then will you provide some examples of HOW TO?
Faults and flaws are subjective value judgements, and only have meaning as a comparison to something else. A fault is only a fault if it is contrary to a supposed preference. If your preference is for human beings to treat their environment with care, but they don't, then you will perceive that as a flaw in human beings. It might be possible to talk about faults and flaws without implying criticism, but not when they are being talked about in the way you were talking about them.
By the way, is it fair that you perceive that I am being so-called 'so critical' when, to me, I am just POINTING OUT and SHOWING the FAULTS and FLAWS in adult human behavior. Which, by the way, is just the VERY NATURAL WAY that Nature, Itself, WORKS.
I don't feel able to comment on the fairness of my perception that you were being critical. I have no idea what such a judgement should be based on.
I wonder if, let us say "david attenborough" for example, gets 'criticized' for 'criticizing' what animals do, when maybe "david attenborough" is just stating the facts of what animals do, according to 'their nature', without value judgment?
David Attenborough is just a TV presenter who tends to specialise in natural history programmes. He describes the behaviour of animals without projecting his own subjective feelings onto them. He comes to no moral or ethical conclusions about animal behaviour. David Attenborough sometimes has something to say about the way human beings treat their environment, where he does usually reach moral and ethical conclusions.

But I am now also wondering something: You have a practice of CAPITALISING entire words to give them particular emphasis. When you fail to give David Attenborough the capital D and A that English grammar would normally demand, are you making a statement about his significance?
By the way, are 'you' stating the fact of what you ASSUME I am doing here, without value judgment, OR, with value judgement, and thus really just criticizing me here?
I am suggesting that you are presenting a subjective view as an objective state of affairs, so yes, I suppose I am making a criticism.
And, could it be the case that I could just be stating Facts WITHOUT a value judgement attached FAR LESS than may come across.
Yes, that could be the case.
Have some people been ABLE TO 'master the art' of communication BETTER, with 'you', human beings, than I have, like "david attenborough"?
I find that some human beings are better able to communicate with other human beings than some other human beings are. David Attenborough, as I mentioned before, is a TV presenter, so being an effective communicator is an important part of his job.
Or, could it be the case because "david attenborough" talks about, or states facts about, OTHER animals and NOT the human being animal, like I do, and adult human beings do NOT necessarily like to be TOLD the Truth about 'them', nor have the SPOTLIGHT SHINED UPON 'them', and so being 'so critical' is PRESUME FAR MORE OFTEN?
Human beings tend not to like being criticised by anybody, or, if you prefer, they tend not to like having their 'faults' spotlit. I can't work out exactly what you are asking, so my reply might not be satisfactory, particularly as it contains no reference to David Attenborough.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 14561
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:59 pm
When did 'this' CHANGE to be about the meaning or purpose to 'their' life?
But isn't that what 'this' is all about? I mean what else is going to question the meaning of life?

It's always going to be a 'theirs' kind of probing is it not?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 14561
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:59 pm
I do NOT know. What would you SAY and CLAIM here, would that person be telling a truth or a lie, as to the meaning and purpose of life?
I'm assuming it would be 'their' truth, just as you yourself Age have stated here > But, ULTIMATELY, there can ONLY be just One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose' < that is just your claim is it not?



So for me, I would say that what I said is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge that I have FOUND, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Trajk Logik »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:23 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:11 pm When stars explode they seed the galaxy with the heavier elements necessary for forming new planets and new life and all the effects that come with that process. Why would we focus on the star's death as it's meaning or purpose when it's existence continues to perpetuate change? Can stars, and life, have more than one meaning or purpose?
The could be as many meanings or purposes as there are 'meaning and/or purposeful thinking' beings, and even MORE. But, ULTIMATELY, there can ONLY be just One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose'.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:57 am Will you tell THE FORUM what that '' One FUNDAMENTAL 'meaning' AND 'purpose'' IS?
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:57 am Yes.

'That', which absolutely EVERY one agrees with and accepts.
What makes you think that there could be just one fundamental meaning/purpose? What if there is no first cause, then there would be no fundamental meaning/purpose, there would just be an infinite number of meaning/purposes (infinite causation; no beginning, no end).
Post Reply