The meaning of life

[Harbal]

Is this because hedgehogs do NOT have the ABILITY to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'lectures', or for some other reason?

I think that even if hedgehogs were able to understand lectures they wouldn't change their behaviour as a result of being subjected to them.

And, is it, REALLY, in hedgehog's 'nature' to so-call 'mess up the road', by 'placing themselves in the path of oncoming traffic'? Or, is just a part of Nature, Itself, that another species of animal evolved so much faster or quicker that they began to imagine, design, and create roads, automobiles, and traffic BEFORE the hedgehogs could evolve ways to AVOID the 'oncoming traffic'?

I would say this is an example of two species of animal behaving according to their natures.

Now, would you like to SHOW A time WHERE I have, while just POINTING OUT the FAULTS and FLAWS with 'you', adult human beings, I have ALSO been 'critical', or 'so critical', of those FAULTS or FLAWS? I CERTAINLY can NOT SEE ANY in the example above here. BUT, maybe 'you', or "others", can SEE what I have YET TO.

Statements like this seem to imply criticism, and you seem to make quite a lot of such statements: "ALL human beings are BORN, or created, PERFECT. They, very sadly, and however, LEARN from adult human beings, and so BECOME LIARS, DECEIVERS, 'evil', and therefore CREATE a world of 'suffering'."

If you say you are just stating a fact without a value judgement attached, I cannot prove otherwise, but I suspect that most people reading it would infer cticism.

[promethean75]

"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? 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.

we unconsciously indicate a difference in type in such phrasing if there is difference enough to qualify another subdivision of types.

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).

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.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

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.

[bobmax]

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.

[Lacewing]

"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'.

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.

[Dontaskme]

The meaning of life, it has no purpose; bar a series of Monty Pythons flying Circus.

[Dontaskme]

[Harbal]

Why have you posted that spinning thing on my thread, DAM?

Explain yourself.

[Dontaskme]

Why have you posted that spinning thing on my thread, DAM?

Explain yourself.

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]

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.

[Dontaskme]

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.

[Trajk Logik]

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

[bahman]

Yes, our existence is pointless, but the absurdity of life makes it well worth living.














Harbalpotkin

There is a difference between being pointless and having meaning.

[Impenitent]

Yes, our existence is pointless, but the absurdity of life makes it well worth living.














Harbalpotkin

There is a difference between being pointless and having meaning.

said no meaningful sphere ever...

-Imp

[Age]

Is this because hedgehogs do NOT have the ABILITY to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'lectures', or for some other reason?

I think that even if hedgehogs were able to understand lectures they wouldn't change their behaviour as a result of being subjected to them.

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?

And, is it, REALLY, in hedgehog's 'nature' to so-call 'mess up the road', by 'placing themselves in the path of oncoming traffic'? Or, is just a part of Nature, Itself, that another species of animal evolved so much faster or quicker that they began to imagine, design, and create roads, automobiles, and traffic BEFORE the hedgehogs could evolve ways to AVOID the 'oncoming traffic'?

I would say this is an example of two species of animal behaving according to their natures.

Okay great.

So, to you, do ALL species of animal behave according to 'their natures'?

Either way, what is the DIFFERENCE between the human beings animal's 'nature' and the hedgehog's 'nature'?

Now, would you like to SHOW A time WHERE I have, while just POINTING OUT the FAULTS and FLAWS with 'you', adult human beings, I have ALSO been 'critical', or 'so critical', of those FAULTS or FLAWS? I CERTAINLY can NOT SEE ANY in the example above here. BUT, maybe 'you', or "others", can SEE what I have YET TO.

Statements like this seem to imply criticism, and you seem to make quite a lot of such statements: "ALL human beings are BORN, or created, PERFECT. They, very sadly, and however, LEARN from adult human beings, and so BECOME LIARS, DECEIVERS, 'evil', and therefore CREATE a world of 'suffering'."

Okay GREAT, thank you for the Honest CLARIFICATION.

Was it only the 'very sadly' words, which 'implied' the 'criticism' here, or were there other indicators?

If the latter, then what were they?

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?

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.

SEE, adult human beings FAULTING and FAILING is EXACTLY what IS intended, for the OUTCOME, soon to come for 'you', to be ABLE TO BECOME 'Reality'

If you say you are just stating a fact without a value judgement attached, I cannot prove otherwise, but I suspect that most people reading it would infer cticism.

Okay. There is NO REAL USE in my STATING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here.

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?

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?

And, could it be the case that I could just be stating Facts WITHOUT a value judgement attached FAR LESS than may come across. Have some people been ABLE TO 'master the art' of communication BETTER, with 'you', human beings, than I have, like "david attenborough"? 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?

ONCE AGAIN, there are SO MANY 'things' to ACTUALLY LOOK AT and CONSIDER here now.