The meaning of life

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm
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.
And here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of HOW it is ASSUMPTIONS, and/or ASSUMING itself, which can completely effect the ability of one to READ the ACTUAL 'message', which is being conveyed. If you can NOT even mention nor name what the 'various reasons' are exactly, let alone be able to explain how they affected the way you INTERPRETED the 'message' that I was conveying, then, maybe, the only 'thing' that is, intuitively, being perceived here were your OWN ASSUMPTIONS, or ASSUMING.

Without CLARIFICATION you might have just been 'reading' from what I call APE thinking. That is; reading or listening from Assumptions based on Past Experiences, INSTEAD of obtaining and gaining CLARITY, FIRST. See, 'wisdom' itself lays and/or is found IN CLARIFICATION, whereas ASSUMPTIONS and/or ASSUMING can all to easily and simply lead to obtaining and/or having False, Wrong, or Incorrect knowledge, thus the very opposite of 'wisdom'.

With CLARITY one can NEVER be Wrong. However, with ASSUMPTIONS one can be VERY, VERY Wrong.

SEE, I could have just been stating facts without a value judgement attached, but as you suspect and assume most people reading what I write might infer criticism. But NONE of 'you' will EVER KNOW what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS WITHOUT GAINING and OBTAINING CLARITY FIRST.
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm
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.
BUT it does NOT HAVE TO BE a 'criticism', and IN FACT once one KNOWS HOW and WHY human beings ARE, the way they ARE, then that one ALSO KNOWS WHY that, perceived, 'flaw' is ACTUALLY 'there' AND KNOWS the EXACT REASON WHY that 'flaw' existed, back in the days when 'it' did, like in the days when this was being written.

See, that 'flaw' IS, and WAS, a VERY NECESSARY part of the VERY Natural evolutionary process.
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm 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.
So, then do you have ANY suggestions of HOW to help "others" to CHANGE, for the better, IF 'faults' and/or 'flaws' are NEVER talked about in the way that I am, SUPPOSEDLY, talking about 'them'?

HOW would you talk about the Wrongs that "others" and/or "yourselves" do WITHOUT talking about 'them' in a way that is PERCEIVED as being 'criticisms'?

Now, back to where you were saying, human beings have the ability to modify their behavior through rational thought, but HOW can they make that CHANGE if they are PERCEIVING ANY talk about the Wrong they do, or the 'faults' and 'flaws' they have IS A 'criticism'?

Would it HELP if I specifically spelled out from the beginning that 'this' is NOT a 'criticism' but is just an OBSERVATION, or is there some other way I could communicate BETTER, which you could help me with here?
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm
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.
What 'judgment' your comment about me being 'critical' and even 'so critical', as in your words, could be that I now perceive 'you' as being 'so critical' of 'me' and the way I write, speak, and/or am misbehaving or behaving 'wrongly' here.

Does it NOT seem UNFAIR to be 'critical' of "someone else", for 'them' being 'critical' of "others"? And, it might also be MORE UNFAIR of being 'critical' of one for being 'critical' of "others" if that one was NOT really being 'that critical' of "others" from the outset, or was NOT intentionally meaning to be 'critical' AT ALL.
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm
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.
Well it would be a Truly CRAZY and MIXED up 'world' if ANY human being layed 'judgments' on animals, besides 'you' human ones, for what the other animals did.
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm He comes to no moral or ethical conclusions about animal behaviour.
I CERTAINLY hope "david attenborough" does NOT, as well as I hope ALL of 'you' "other human beings" do NOT come to moral or ethical conclusions about animal behavior. Except, OF COURSE, in regards to your OWN human being animal behaviors and misbehaviors. In fact I hope VERY SOON ALL of 'you', adult human beings, will WORK OUT and CONCLUDE what IS ACTUALLY Right and Good in Life.

It was, after all, not that hard to work out and AGREE UPON. That is; once one WORKS OUT and/or LEARNS HOW to find thee ACTUAL Truths in Life.
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm David Attenborough sometimes has something to say about the way human beings treat their environment, where he does usually reach moral and ethical conclusions.
And do you find that being 'critical' and/or being 'so critical' ALSO. Or, is it ONLY when I say some 'thing' about the way 'you', adult human beings, mistreat children, each other, and/or the environment then 'that' is being 'critical'?

When "david attenborough" reaches moral or ethical conclusions about the way 'you', human beings, mis/behave is "david attenborough" ALSO being 'critical', or is it ONLY 'being critical' when I reach moral and ethical conclusions about 'you', adult human beings?
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm 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?
Yes, and I was wondering HOW LONG it would take someone to NOTICE the way I write like 'this'.

If ANY one is interested for absolutely ANY and EVERY label for absolutely ANY and EVERY human being in this forum I have NOT used a capital letter, (EXCEPT I did make the MISTAKE of writing 'age' with a capital 's' when i registered here). So, "david attenborough", "harbal", or "jesus christ" for example or ANY other human being, to me, has the EXACT SAME 'significance', and/or is on the EXACT SAME LEVEL, as EVERY other human being. To me, absolutely NO one is more NOR less 'important' NOR 'special' than absolutely ANY other one.

I find the way 'you', "harbal", NOTICE a LOT MORE than "others" do VERY REFRESHING. And, that 'you' ask a LOT MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS is Truly 'awe-inspiring' ALSO
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm
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.
Okay, so is what you are doing here just presenting a 'subjective view' as an 'objective state of affairs' also?

Either way, HOW can we IMPROVE this way of communicating, that is; IF it is Truly Wrong?

Or, is there ACTUALLY an 'internal KNOWING' of what IS ACTUALLY Right in Life, and which it might ONLY be through 'value judging' and some sort of 'criticism', through 'rational thinking' HOW, WHERE, and WHY CHANGING, for the BETTER ACTUALLY OCCURS?

I HOPE I can LEARN to communicate BETTER where I am NOT seen as being 'critical', as presenting just a 'subjective view' ONLY, and/or as seen as passing 'judgment', but, as I continually say, I am STILL just in the process of LEARNING how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings.
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm
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.
Okay thanks. This is GREAT to learn and become aware of.
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm
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.
I HOPE I WILL LEARN, and AM LEARNING, HOW to communicate BETTER.
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm
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.
This is what I have OBSERVED ALSO. And, I am pretty sure I KNOW the very reason WHY, as well.
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm 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.
I thought you answered the EXACT QUESTION that I posed and asked you here, and answered 'it' VERY Openly and Honestly, I will add and thank you for ALSO.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:16 pm
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?
What is the 'this' word here referring to, EXACTLY?
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:16 pmI mean what else is going to question the meaning of life?
ANY 'thing' with the ability to question, and wants to, I would say.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:16 pm It's always going to be a 'theirs' kind of probing is it not?
Are you NOT YET AWARE that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a 'human being's life' and 'Life', Itself?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:33 pm
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?
OF COURSE THAT IS JUST MY CLAIM.

I thought this was already OBVIOUS.

So for me, I would say that what I said is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge that I have FOUND, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:48 pm
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?
Because I have found One that EVERY one could agree with, and accept.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:48 pm 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).
But there IS a 'first cause', but 'it' is NOT in the way that most of 'you', posters, here are thinking, NOR imagining, about.

Oh, and by the way, there IS NO beginning, and there WAS NO end.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Dontaskme »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:33 pm 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?
Age wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:01 amOF COURSE THAT IS JUST MY CLAIM.

I thought this was already OBVIOUS.


When I asked you to tell the forum what this one FUNDAMENTAL meaning and purpose is...you replied and said..Because I have found One that EVERY one could agree with, and accept.

Now, WILL you put into words what EVERY one could agree with and accept?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Sculptor »

Harbal wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:00 pm Yes, our existence is pointless, but the absurdity of life makes it well worth living.














Harbalpotkin
THe meaning of life is...................










































dog
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Sculptor »

Boffy
Boffy
dog.JPG (43.75 KiB) Viewed 307 times
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:23 am 'That', which absolutely EVERY one agrees with and accepts.
Not me.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Trajk Logik »

Age wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:55 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:48 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:23 am

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?
Because I have found One that EVERY one could agree with, and accept.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:48 pm 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).
But there IS a 'first cause', but 'it' is NOT in the way that most of 'you', posters, here are thinking, NOR imagining, about.

Oh, and by the way, there IS NO beginning, and there WAS NO end.
Not helpful in the least. If you're not willing to elaborate and provide examples, then how am I suppose to accept it and agree with you? I don't even know what your talking about.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
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?
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:16 pmBut isn't that what 'this' is all about?
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:59 pmWhat is the 'this' word here referring to, EXACTLY?
It's about what you were referring to, the same 'this' that I have highlighted and underlined in red for you.

That's what it is referring to.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Harbal »

Age wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 12:22 am So, then do you have ANY suggestions of HOW to help "others" to CHANGE, for the better, IF 'faults' and/or 'flaws' are NEVER talked about in the way that I am, SUPPOSEDLY, talking about 'them'?

HOW would you talk about the Wrongs that "others" and/or "yourselves" do WITHOUT talking about 'them' in a way that is PERCEIVED as being 'criticisms'?
I don't think it makes any more sense to talk about human flaws than it does to talk about any other animal having flaws. Humans evolved to survive and reproduce in a particular environment, just like all other living creatures did. The problem is that we have gone on to shape our environment, physically, socially and culturally, so that we are now living under conditions evolution didn't design us for. This, I think, is the reason why human behaviour is sometimes perceived as being flawed.

That's not to say we should just accept that everything is screwed up and we simply have to put up with it. The way the human race is conducting itself at present is certainly creating a situation that is detrimental to us all, so we clearly should be thinking of how we might go about addressing the problem. I don't think the basic proposition that human beings are a flawed species is a correct or useful starting point from which to proceed in finding solutions to our predicament.
Would it HELP if I specifically spelled out from the beginning that 'this' is NOT a 'criticism' but is just an OBSERVATION, or is there some other way I could communicate BETTER, which you could help me with here?
People who feel they are being criticised tend to respond by being defensive, so it depends on whether you want to avoid that or not. One thing I can say is that your customary way of addressing people as, "you, adult human beings," might come across as a little less alienating if you were to modify it to, "we, adult human beings," but you could only do that if you didn't regard yourself as being apart from the rest of us adult human beings.
And do you find that being 'critical' and/or being 'so critical' ALSO. Or, is it ONLY when I say some 'thing' about the way 'you', adult human beings, mistreat children, each other, and/or the environment then 'that' is being 'critical'?



When "david attenborough" reaches moral or ethical conclusions about the way 'you', human beings, mis/behave is "david attenborough" ALSO being 'critical', or is it ONLY 'being critical' when I reach moral and ethical conclusions about 'you', adult human beings?
I think I only questioned your use of the word "flawed" in relation to human beings, and that was because I don't think it's a helpful description when it comes to looking at the problems you want to draw attention to. Human nature is neither good nor bad, it is just human nature. If humanity is faced with a problem, then a solution that does not conflict with human nature is more likely to be more successful than a solution that depends on our -adult human beings- acting contrary to our human nature, isn't it?
Okay, so is what you are doing here just presenting a 'subjective view' as an 'objective state of affairs' also?
I don't know, because I'm starting to get confused about what the original issue was. If it was what I said about your using the term, "flawed", then I suppose I was just expressing my personal opinion.
Either way, HOW can we IMPROVE this way of communicating, that is; IF it is Truly Wrong?
But do you agree that it was wrong? Because if you do, you must have a reason for thinking that, and the answer you are looking for will lie in that reason. If that sounds like nonsence it is because I'm losing sight of what we are trying to improve.
Or, is there ACTUALLY an 'internal KNOWING' of what IS ACTUALLY Right in Life, and which it might ONLY be through 'value judging' and some sort of 'criticism', through 'rational thinking' HOW, WHERE, and WHY CHANGING, for the BETTER ACTUALLY OCCURS?
I think there is an internal knowing that tells us what is right in life, but this internal "knowledge" can vary greatly between one individual and another, so arriving at a change that every one thinks better is going to be very difficult, if not impossible.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:14 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:55 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:48 pm





What makes you think that there could be just one fundamental meaning/purpose?
Because I have found One that EVERY one could agree with, and accept.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:48 pm 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).
But there IS a 'first cause', but 'it' is NOT in the way that most of 'you', posters, here are thinking, NOR imagining, about.

Oh, and by the way, there IS NO beginning, and there WAS NO end.
Not helpful in the least.
Are you implying here NOT AT ALL?
Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:14 pm If you're not willing to elaborate and provide examples, then how am I suppose to accept it and agree with you?
But I have NEVER wanted you to accept 'it', (whatever 'it' is EXACTLY), NOR have I EVER wanted you to agree with me.

you are absolutely FREE to accept and agree with absolutely ANY thing of your CHOOSING. I CERTAINLY do NOT want to influence you in ANY way whatsoever.

I just answer and CLARIFY questions posed to me, from those who are INTERESTED. And, the MORE one is INTERESTED, then the MORE CLARIFYING questions they will pose, and ask to me, and then the MORE information I WILL provide. Thus, for those who are Truly INTERESTED, then they will come to KNOW thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, AS WELL.
Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:14 pm I don't even know what your talking about.
Okay, and by the way, it was appearing as though this was the case anyway.

Furthermore, IF you EVER REALLY did WANT to KNOW what i am talking about, then you WILL ask the RIGHT questions.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:16 am
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:33 pm 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?
Age wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:01 amOF COURSE THAT IS JUST MY CLAIM.

I thought this was already OBVIOUS.


When I asked you to tell the forum what this one FUNDAMENTAL meaning and purpose is...you replied and said..Because I have found One that EVERY one could agree with, and accept.
LOL
LOL
LOL

WHEN did you EVER ask me 'to tell the forum what this one FUNDAMENTAL meaning and purpose is', EXACTLY? (Oh and by the way that is NOT 'asking' that IS 'telling'.)

Now, what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE was you posed, to me, a question, and asked, 'What makes you think that there could be just one fundamental meaning/purpose?

To which I replied, Because I have found One that EVERY one could agree with, and accept.

Which, BOTH, answers and CLARIFIES the ACTUAL question you asked me. Honestly, I will add here, now.

If you would like me to provide a DIFFERENT answer or do some 'thing' DIFFERENTLY, then I suggest you ASK a question here now.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:16 am Now, WILL you put into words what EVERY one could agree with and accept?
Yes, now that you have ASKED me to.

It is Wrong to ABUSE 'things'.

It is Wrong to KILL living 'things' when there is NO 'need' to.

The meaning of the word 'Life' is, living; being alive. And,

The purpose of the human being is to teach, and learn, and that there is NO real purpose in teaching, NOR learning, how to make 'Life', that is, living; being alive, worse for ANY 'thing', but there is a great deal of purpose in learning, and then teaching, HOW to make 'Life', Itself BETTER, for EVERY one.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:37 am
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:23 am 'That', which absolutely EVERY one agrees with and accepts.
Not me.
LOL

What do the words 'not me' even mean or are referring to here, EXACTLY?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The meaning of life

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:43 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:59 pm When did 'this' CHANGE to be about the meaning or purpose to 'their' life?
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:16 pmBut isn't that what 'this' is all about?
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:59 pmWhat is the 'this' word here referring to, EXACTLY?
It's about what you were referring to, the same 'this' that I have highlighted and underlined in red for you.

That's what it is referring to.
OKAY. Well 'this' WAS about, 'The meaning of life', as DEMONSTRATED by the topic title of this thread.

And, 'this' was NEVER about 'their life', which you CHANGED 'this' FROM, and then TO.

So, what 'this' was 'all about' WAS 'life', itself, and NOT 'their life' NOR 'their lives'. Do you NOW understand?
Post Reply