Meaning of Life
Im confused. What is life? Why is life? Where did it come from. Are we special?
Is there a God? What is God? Why is God?
Such questions! Here I am, one of 8,000,000,000 people on earth. What on earth could be special about me? Would it make any difference if I did not exist?
I am an American citizen. Americans are taught from birth that they are unique and special. This dammed Rugged Individualism. Where has it gotten us? Oriental societies are more accepting of the idea of being part of the milieu of life.
I will try to offer my humble thoughts on some of these questions.
What is Life?
The biologists have their definition of life which I will not dispute. For most of us life is what is active, eating and reproducing on the earth. Scientists for years have tried to explain the existence of life on earth as just a complex chemical reaction that burst forth from the base elements on the earth. I have a little problem with that explanation. How do you get from a bunch of chemicals to a living reproducing thing that life is. The chemicals involved in life are so complex it is hard to imagine them becoming life by chance. Maybe we are only truly interested in human life.
Most religions attempt to answer the question of human life. Probably the Catholic Church is the best at offering a simple solution. God Made us to love and serve him. What the heck does that mean. What could little old me do that would be meaningful to a God? Why would a God want 8 billion of us?
How about in Islam? In Islam, He created people out of love for the purpose of sharing love. People were created to love God and each other. Additionally, when God created people, he gave them good work to do so that they might experience God's goodness and reflect his image in the way they care for the world and for each other.1 This sounds a lot like the Christian answer.
What do the Hindus think? For Hindus the universe was created by Brahma, the creator who made the universe out of himself2. This makes a little more sense. We are just a piece of an infinite God. He did not have to make us for some reason.
My background is in science and mathematics, so I tend to take a systematic approach to these questions. When I look around at the apparent reality that we have, I ask myself what is special? What is unique? To me the one thing that rises above the ordinary interactions of matter is life. Life does not seem to follow the rules of the physical universe. There is something in life that is different. Life seems to go against the basic law of entropy.
So, what does this mean? For me life is the part of a God that we can see. Im not sure I would go so far as to say life is God, but it definitely is a visible expression of a God if such a thing exists. You might even go one step further and say that existence is an expression of God.
So, what is this God? I literally can not know. As a little spec of matter in the universe it is impossible for me to know. It would be like asking one cell in your body, what you are. There is a maelstrom of stuff out there. How could I ever hope to grasp the meaning of it all. Do I have any meaning or responsibility within this milieu?
It is interesting. I just read an article about scientists musing about a new force of nature that drives the existence of life. Entropy would seem to deny life, but this new force can work against entropy and bring about the creation of complex systems that lead to life. Sound a little bit like a God. Heaven forbid that they should use that word.
Obviously, life exists so where do we fit in this collection of living things? We would of course want to say that we are at the top of the evolution of life. We may be. Maybe it is like Teilhard DeJardin says that we are just one step on the evolution of life toward goodness or being with God. Are we really that special. What is unique about man that he should be so special?
Part of answering this last question is, do I have free will? There are scientists out there now who are claiming we do not have free will. They argue that all that I am is determined at birth or by our experiences growing up. Our life is determined. If I am just a creature like a goat or an ant, I should just try to survive and hope I dont get eaten. If I have a free will, I then have responsibilities. Personally, I do think we have free will withing certain limits. People do on occasion choose courses of action that are outside of their experience. Now I have to ask; What does it mean to have responsibilities? Responsibilities to who or what.
This begs the question; do we have a responsibility to the one who created us if there is such a being? This is a tough question. If there is such a being we should consider that question. If there is a God, what do we owe him? Most religions advocate prostrating yourself before him and begging him to forgive us and for him to love us. I suspect this comes from the image of God as a father. As children we are always asking for forgiveness and love from our father. Even though this is common in most religions I have trouble picturing God as a father figure. What God really wants, who knows. If he has in some sense created us then we owe him felty and respect but I dont know how you love an idea.
Probably one of the most important of these responsibilities is to yourself. I must try to be the best of what I can be. What is the best of me? That is a tough question. If I exist, then I must have some basic attributes that are part of my nature. So, I should behave in accordance with that nature. The catch here is, what is my nature? That has been a question asked for at least the last 10,000 years. Maybe longer. In some sense this is a circular argument. In a way, we are asking again, who made us. I think though that we can offer some observations about who we are without generating too many arguments. We are social animals that depend on one another for our wellbeing. We value honesty, cooperation, charity, intelligence and most of all love. I think we can look at these characteristics and decide if someone is a good person and living according to his/her nature.
Given this; what is a bad person. Well, a bad person is simply someone who fails in one of these characteristics. What should we do with a bad person? Of course, we should try to help him become a good person. Should we condemn him because he/she is bad? If anything, life has taught us that, it is really easy to fail on one of these characteristics. Here is where love comes in. Through love we should help one another rise above each of these failures of character.
Now you are going to say, some people are defective and are not capable of correcting these character flaws. Have they chosen this or has life been determined by their DNA and upbringing to be as they are. Do they have the ability to change. Within our living today I dont think it is possible to definitively determine their personal responsibility for their behavior. Again, this is where love comes in. If we are not able to correctly judge them we cannot punish them. But we have a responsibility to guide these people into an environment where they are not a danger to themselves or others and if possible, work toward correcting their inherent flaws.
Do we have other responsibilities because of our free will? I think one of those responsibilities is to seek knowledge of the world. Knowledge of the world leads to improvement in the human condition. This knowledge of the world has enabled us to evolve over time and to adapt to all the different environments we encounter. Knowledge of the world has led to a better understanding of the nature of man which then enables us to have these philosophical discussions and live a better life.
Well, where are we? Have I made any progress on the big questions? Probably not. Writing essays like this though does help one to clarify ones thinking. Are there heaven or hell or grace, I dont know. Does not understanding any of this make me a bad person? I dont think so. If one lives a life in accordance with a positive view of human nature I think you are a good person.
?
1. Northern Arizona University https://www2.nau.edu bio301 content iscrst
2. Bitesize, GCSE CCEA
Is there a God? What is God? Why is God?
Such questions! Here I am, one of 8,000,000,000 people on earth. What on earth could be special about me? Would it make any difference if I did not exist?
I am an American citizen. Americans are taught from birth that they are unique and special. This dammed Rugged Individualism. Where has it gotten us? Oriental societies are more accepting of the idea of being part of the milieu of life.
I will try to offer my humble thoughts on some of these questions.
What is Life?
The biologists have their definition of life which I will not dispute. For most of us life is what is active, eating and reproducing on the earth. Scientists for years have tried to explain the existence of life on earth as just a complex chemical reaction that burst forth from the base elements on the earth. I have a little problem with that explanation. How do you get from a bunch of chemicals to a living reproducing thing that life is. The chemicals involved in life are so complex it is hard to imagine them becoming life by chance. Maybe we are only truly interested in human life.
Most religions attempt to answer the question of human life. Probably the Catholic Church is the best at offering a simple solution. God Made us to love and serve him. What the heck does that mean. What could little old me do that would be meaningful to a God? Why would a God want 8 billion of us?
How about in Islam? In Islam, He created people out of love for the purpose of sharing love. People were created to love God and each other. Additionally, when God created people, he gave them good work to do so that they might experience God's goodness and reflect his image in the way they care for the world and for each other.1 This sounds a lot like the Christian answer.
What do the Hindus think? For Hindus the universe was created by Brahma, the creator who made the universe out of himself2. This makes a little more sense. We are just a piece of an infinite God. He did not have to make us for some reason.
My background is in science and mathematics, so I tend to take a systematic approach to these questions. When I look around at the apparent reality that we have, I ask myself what is special? What is unique? To me the one thing that rises above the ordinary interactions of matter is life. Life does not seem to follow the rules of the physical universe. There is something in life that is different. Life seems to go against the basic law of entropy.
So, what does this mean? For me life is the part of a God that we can see. Im not sure I would go so far as to say life is God, but it definitely is a visible expression of a God if such a thing exists. You might even go one step further and say that existence is an expression of God.
So, what is this God? I literally can not know. As a little spec of matter in the universe it is impossible for me to know. It would be like asking one cell in your body, what you are. There is a maelstrom of stuff out there. How could I ever hope to grasp the meaning of it all. Do I have any meaning or responsibility within this milieu?
It is interesting. I just read an article about scientists musing about a new force of nature that drives the existence of life. Entropy would seem to deny life, but this new force can work against entropy and bring about the creation of complex systems that lead to life. Sound a little bit like a God. Heaven forbid that they should use that word.
Obviously, life exists so where do we fit in this collection of living things? We would of course want to say that we are at the top of the evolution of life. We may be. Maybe it is like Teilhard DeJardin says that we are just one step on the evolution of life toward goodness or being with God. Are we really that special. What is unique about man that he should be so special?
Part of answering this last question is, do I have free will? There are scientists out there now who are claiming we do not have free will. They argue that all that I am is determined at birth or by our experiences growing up. Our life is determined. If I am just a creature like a goat or an ant, I should just try to survive and hope I dont get eaten. If I have a free will, I then have responsibilities. Personally, I do think we have free will withing certain limits. People do on occasion choose courses of action that are outside of their experience. Now I have to ask; What does it mean to have responsibilities? Responsibilities to who or what.
This begs the question; do we have a responsibility to the one who created us if there is such a being? This is a tough question. If there is such a being we should consider that question. If there is a God, what do we owe him? Most religions advocate prostrating yourself before him and begging him to forgive us and for him to love us. I suspect this comes from the image of God as a father. As children we are always asking for forgiveness and love from our father. Even though this is common in most religions I have trouble picturing God as a father figure. What God really wants, who knows. If he has in some sense created us then we owe him felty and respect but I dont know how you love an idea.
Probably one of the most important of these responsibilities is to yourself. I must try to be the best of what I can be. What is the best of me? That is a tough question. If I exist, then I must have some basic attributes that are part of my nature. So, I should behave in accordance with that nature. The catch here is, what is my nature? That has been a question asked for at least the last 10,000 years. Maybe longer. In some sense this is a circular argument. In a way, we are asking again, who made us. I think though that we can offer some observations about who we are without generating too many arguments. We are social animals that depend on one another for our wellbeing. We value honesty, cooperation, charity, intelligence and most of all love. I think we can look at these characteristics and decide if someone is a good person and living according to his/her nature.
Given this; what is a bad person. Well, a bad person is simply someone who fails in one of these characteristics. What should we do with a bad person? Of course, we should try to help him become a good person. Should we condemn him because he/she is bad? If anything, life has taught us that, it is really easy to fail on one of these characteristics. Here is where love comes in. Through love we should help one another rise above each of these failures of character.
Now you are going to say, some people are defective and are not capable of correcting these character flaws. Have they chosen this or has life been determined by their DNA and upbringing to be as they are. Do they have the ability to change. Within our living today I dont think it is possible to definitively determine their personal responsibility for their behavior. Again, this is where love comes in. If we are not able to correctly judge them we cannot punish them. But we have a responsibility to guide these people into an environment where they are not a danger to themselves or others and if possible, work toward correcting their inherent flaws.
Do we have other responsibilities because of our free will? I think one of those responsibilities is to seek knowledge of the world. Knowledge of the world leads to improvement in the human condition. This knowledge of the world has enabled us to evolve over time and to adapt to all the different environments we encounter. Knowledge of the world has led to a better understanding of the nature of man which then enables us to have these philosophical discussions and live a better life.
Well, where are we? Have I made any progress on the big questions? Probably not. Writing essays like this though does help one to clarify ones thinking. Are there heaven or hell or grace, I dont know. Does not understanding any of this make me a bad person? I dont think so. If one lives a life in accordance with a positive view of human nature I think you are a good person.
?
1. Northern Arizona University https://www2.nau.edu bio301 content iscrst
2. Bitesize, GCSE CCEA
Comments (53)
There are around 100 billion stars in the milky way galaxy. It is also estimated that there are up to 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe. So there are probably more planets in the universe than grains of sand on earth. You, as a unique member of a population of 8 billion unique individuals living on this planet, are, on a universal scale, very rare indeed. Also, as far as we know, without a creature such as you, the universe may have no meaning or purpose, other than that which the like of you create. You can even imagineer gods.
So, first thing first: you are not the first one person in the world raising these questions. People have spent lives, energies, every kind of resources to deal with these questions. Their results can help you a lot, but you cannot understand anything if you want get quick answers: this would be the marketing mentality, of getting things easily, quickly, simply. The problem with this mentality is that it, because of this way of proceeding, says implicitly, and contradictorily, that these questions are not important. I am not saying that this is your mentality: it is just a risk, if you dont have the patience of dedicating to your questions an appropriate amount of time and study.
After making your list of questions, I would suggest you to put them in order, any order, whatever order seems best to you. Then start from the first one and start doing some research. At the same time, try to organize your familiarity with philosophy, by organizing a path of study of it.
This way you will have taken your questions seriously and you will show yourself continuously that you are taking them seriously.
On the contrary, if you will get randomly distracted by one random question, random discussions, random everything, you will enter the contradiction I referred to: you are giving importance to your questions now, but the way you will end up dealing with them might tell that actually you arent.
Take the advice of Quintus Horatius Flaccus: tu ne quaesieris. There are no answers to these questions as they're intended. Just get on with life as best you can.
I think "meaning of life" questions become unnecessarily rooted in these historic questions of religion and science. I think when answering this question, just do some self-examination. What is it that you "do" every day? Basically, I think Schopenhauer has characterized it correctly, more-or-less. He basically said that we struggle to just exist. We were born into the world, not of any known prior desire to be born. We then have to deal with this fact. That involves survival in a society, learning the means of gaining enough resources to survive and be a comfortable, and find ways of entertainment. That's about it. Everything else is window dressing. Schopenhauer mentions the idea of Will or "will-to-live". Well, we need not perhaps make it a metaphysical thing. We can keep it at the personal existential level. That is to say, we struggle to fulfill our wants and needs. Boredom or "angst" tells us that we are never generally satisfied or satisfied for very long. The idea of "flourishing" is simply trying to run past the debt that is continually pressing upon us, which is an inherent dissatisfaction of being an animal that is oriented towards fulfilling needs and wants.
Thank you very much for your response. I am just beginning on this forum and I appreciate any response I get.
I would guess that you are an academic. My essay was not as a professional philosopher. My intent was to use a device of writing to get nonphilosophers to begin thinking about these questions. I spent nearly forty years in education and I guess my focus has always been to get the student thinking.
I would love to continue sharing ideas about these and other questions.
That is an interesting question. There is no real need to have meaning. From the earliest Greek philosophers to the present, they all seem to be looking for meaning in life and existence. Maybe that is something that has evolved in man as part of his survival strategy. It deserves further discussion.
This.
Chance.
The universe.
"Life" (i.e. local order) is just entropy's rarified way of increasing entropy (i.e. global disorder).
Compared to what? And what difference does "special" or "not special" make?
The best evidence compellingly suggests that 'there is a god' only in our just-so stories.
An empty name.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_name
It's h. sapiens' oldest placebo and still works on far too many of us.
Like the rest of us, George, you are a grain of sand that isn't exactly identical to any other grain of sand on the beach. And you can know this. That's not much but it ain't nothing.
You also can't count all the stars in the observable universe and visualize all of their relations relative to one another and hold that image in your mind either. So what. It's absurd (A. Camus, P.W. Zapffe) to desire such an omni-grasp of things. Now what does one do in such a vast, encompassing "maelstrom"? You might take ' sage counsel for a start ...
I think you do to the degree you strive to make your choices and relationships "meaningful" each and every day.
Like everyone else, George, you are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions and inaction.
To you, it might. From the universe's perspective, well, you don't even "exist", none of us ephemerae "exist". (Read Epicurus, then read Spinoza)
Quoting Vera Mont
:fire:
I don't see how. Crocodiles have survived far longer without ever asking it - afawk... but then, how much do we humans know about crocodile philosophy?
Humans (predominantly, I think, human males) seem in every age preoccupied with their own significance and dashed when they are compelled to admit how very small it is in the scheme of things. This is part of the reason for inventing gods: in a way, gods are magnified sock-puppets for men who want/need to feel in control of the world; who therefore provide themselves the purpose of imposing meaning and order - at least on their fellow humans. It is also the reason for the entire body of Metaphysics: If only we could reduce life, the universe and everything to basic principles, we could wrestle reality into submission.
Quoting George Fisher
Maybe the boldfaced answer provided could be further elaborated upon but, so far, I can only see this answer as utter hypocrisy. Being sapient, we seek meaning so as to make sense of, and we seek to make sense of so as to improve our own condition of being - if nothing else, so as to better allow us to live, rather than, say, to indifferently perish via rot.
Lesser animals may be sentient but, not being sapient, the quality of their lives is nowhere near as contingent on abstract understanding as our own is.
Absurdism, existentialism, nihilism, all these posit having pinpointed the true nature of reality, or of existence, or of the life which we are (else, are endowed with) - and in all this there is entailed meaning; specifically, meaning regarding reality, existence, life; meaning which endows those who uphold any of these just mentioned positions to better live within the context of the cosmos we find ourselves. Otherwise none of these positions would be in any way sensible to, much less upheld by, anyone.
One will note how none of these three positions just mentioned affirm either "I don't know" or "I don't care".
-------
From a somewhat vulgar sci-fi novel I still greatly like, Venus on the Half-Shell, there is the protagonist's leading question to which he tries to obtain an answer for from various beings within the galaxy:
"Why are we born only to suffer and die?"
The novel ultimately answers this question with:
"Why not?" (which I find might be a more important question to answer for oneself than the first, this were one to care about such issues)
Not all. Understanding of X does not necessarily equate to control of X. No?
Brilliantly succinct Wille zur Macht oh yeah! You 'mansplain' that much much better than I ever could, lady! :clap: :cool::flower:
I can't help but have a good laugh at this. So, you've never encountered a controlling woman then?
"If only" - I didn't say it worked, only that control is the aim.
Note: I also didn't say 'exclusively' - but if you can prove that organized religions and metaphysics are not predominantly masculine in origin, I'll eat a crow. (But you'll have to kill it.)
Well, we seem especially inclined to whine (sorry, write) about such questions, and in spectacular detail, it's true. But there are men of great wisdom, like Horace of course (and me I would say, but am shy) who accept this and soldier on.
Yes, indeed! And I endorse them wholeheartedly - except for that unfortunate bit about soldiery.
As in "control over other (to distinguish this from self-control) is the good to be obtained for its own sake"? Aye to that, for far too many. Agreed. But this won't define the motives of all humans. Compassion, wonder, eudemonia, to list a few commonly found attributes of many a human, male and female, are not driven by the aim of gaining control over other (this such that the other is subjugated to the whims of one's own self).
The same I find applies to metaphysics: one's predispositions will greatly determine what one seeks out of it. For instance, to better gain control over all other or, otherwise, to gain a better understanding of what in fact is, this both physically and psychically. (The same, btw, can be said of any form of knowledge, including that which is scientific.) The latter can be appraised as a "love of wisdom" or else "of truth" wherein these are held to be good for their intrinsic worth, maybe here even good for their own sake. The former, however, will view knowledge and understanding as tools to be used for greater ascendancy toward a superlative superiority of one's own self wherein all other is subjugated.
Consider these two different metaphysics for example: nature as evil that needs to be subjugated and conquered vs. nature as sacredness that needs to be honored and conformed to (an example from a song: nature as that which tames the beast within). The first metaphysics is about control-over; the second isn't.
In short, tmk, control is not the aim of all by any means.
Quoting Vera Mont
:grin: :razz: Hard to "prove" what was well over two millennia past, but a good deal of evidence points to societies being far more egalitarian in terms of sexes and their interests when addressing at least western culture prior to Abrahamic religion/metaphysics. Everything from women pharaohs supported and admired by the people (we often forget that ancient Egypt is so far the most long-surviving civilization in history by far), to female Druids of cultural and religious importance on a par to male Druids, to many a revered goddess in ancient days (to not address the legend of the ancient Amozons, or of Lesbos, and so forth), to tribal societies and their own spiritual/metaphysical beliefs (such as that of animism and its resulting nature worship - which, btw, I personally can't much distinguish from the basic tenets of today's panpsychism, despite the latter often claiming to be physicalist).
So, if this was the case before, there's no reason other than the status quo of culture that this can't be the case again.
Then there's also such a thing as "feminist metaphysics", this on top of a good enough sum of female philosophers. Outnumbered by males, true, but maybe this in large part has to do with cultural indoctrination and resulting education - on par to what one finds in the sciences and in mathematics. If so, than in parallel to how female authors were once greatly outnumbered by males but no longer are, the same could someday hold for women metaphysicans and philsophers in general.
And, for instance, just because Hypatia of Alexandria was mascaraed by males who'd rather forget all about her does not make her a less worthy philosophical figure in our history.
But hey, in the unlikely case this might eventually come to convince you that religions and metaphysics are not under the primary jurisdiction of males in principle, please let that poor crow be!
I see no use for or good reasons for gods and no good reasons for some transcendent purpose. None of that stuff resonates for me.
I agree with this:
Quoting Ciceronianus
And I agree with this:
Quoting 180 Proof
Meaning is a human construct and is always calibrated against some value system. In other words, the only meaning available to us is the meaning we make for ourselves. In my experience, people who spend significant time fretting over meaning can often miss the big picture which involves getting on with living, making choices, participating, helping others, being of use.
Joseph Campbell (with whom I am not always in agreement) wrote: "Life is without meaning. You bring the meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning."
I find this more satisfying than meaning attached to a magic man with no explanatory power and some vague or subjective interpretations of an old book which says a thing.
Nor did it aspire to. Quoting javra
And those qualities also don't inspire wrathful gods, vengeful systems of justice or wars of ideology.
Quoting javra
I'm not sure I could classify the findings of metaphysics as "knowledge of what is", but OK. By what is the quest for this kind of knowledge primarily motivated?
Quoting javra
A few pagans in Europe; Lots of unorganized Native Americans - not the Great Civilizations which conquered them.
Quoting javra
Not a super-convincing example, if you'll look at the depiction. And, of course, being allowed to participate in the rituals is not the same as having invented the gods.
Quoting javra
Which was my contention. Cultural indoctrination is a direct result of the prevailing philosophy.
Quoting javra
Done! My half-facetious summary is not a major tenet of my faith, and I don't eat meat anyway.
"Soldier on" means "to continue to do something or to try to achieve something even though it is difficult" according to Merriam-Webster Online. I'm not sure why, but that's how it was intended.
[quote=Also Sprach Zarathustra]And thus spoke the little old woman: You go to women? Do not forget the whip![/quote]
:fire:
Smilingly asked, would one otherwise classify the findings of metaphysics - such as the nature of time, space, and causality - as "bullshit regarding what is not" (such that neither time, space, nor causality are)?
Quoting Vera Mont
I thought I'd already addressed this. I take it to be primarily motivated by the predispositions of one's character. Some want to subjugate. Others want to understand. Here, alone, are two different motivations.
Quoting Vera Mont
A bit underplayed. It's worth mentioning that these "Great Civilizations which conquered" were all slave-owning. Differences of taste in terms of what is valued, I suspect.
Quoting George Fisher
The "Meaning of Life in general is a perennial quest for Philosophers and Theologians. Scientists though have no need for universal meaning, and only search for the significance of particular things.
Most western religions claim to have the answer direct from the meaning-giver. And that is : loyal subjects are expected to serve their heavenly Master, as serfs & slaves & sycophants grovel before their feudal Lord, in return for protection from external threats, such as devils, demons, & witches. When the Lord is viewed as a king, individuals have no meaning apart from their role in communal service to the realm. Those pawns who don't passively submit to domination may be banished from the fiefdom.
But Philosophers, and modernists in general, tend to be temperamentally individualistic, and hold-out for a more personal kind of meaning. In the 19th century, that yearning for a significant role in the world was often expressed poetically & romantically, in terms of intense relationships to God & man. However, the requirement for a unique meaning & purpose of each person's life, seems to be mostly a modern concern, as expressed most famously by the 20th century existentialists, in terms of "self-actualization".
When each person is left to create his own justification for taking-up space & resources in the world, the value of his life is not set by heavenly standards, but by more naturalistic or humanistic criteria. It may be simply to accomplish some special ambition, or to seek the vague feeling of self-fulfillment. The defining context may be our relationship to mankind, or to the whole universe; as our role in society, or as a cog in the great machine of the Cosmos. The subjective meaning of each life is more often measured simply in terms of happiness or satisfaction with the persons role and status in the community. There seems to be as many personal meanings as there are lives in this world
The Meanings of Life
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page65.html
I think many would agree but I wonder how accurate this is and how far it can be pushed. The problem is that any meaning derived from a religion or philosophy is still a subjective or personal account. What we tend to see is personal preferences played out on a theme - it might be Calvinism or Vedanta or Sufi based. But nowhere does anyone convey or hold a meaning that is not contingent and subjective and constructed from personal preferences and personal interpretations. My guess is that an intense relationship between gods and people is more likely to be an expression of self-love than a relationship between the corporeal and the transcendent.
I know. Geez!
Quoting Ciceronianus
Because, traditionally, a soldier asks not why; his is just to do or die. Carry on regardless.
Quoting javra
On neither of which does metaphysics deliver. The quest is the thing: the prize is forever tantalizingly out of reach.
Quoting javra
Well, of-bloody-course!! Their gods are bullies who approve of subjugation and submission. That's what makes empires great.
Quoting Vera Mont
I might have misinterpreted you before. Sounds like underneath all the superficial bickering, you just might be into this "control over the subjugated other" thing yourself.
Of note, one can engage in conflict, war, or maybe worse so as to not be subjugated just fine without any intention of subjugating the other. This can in part be expressed via that whole, "give me liberty, or give me death" motif - a bit of philosophizing in and of itself.
I might, subconsciously - who knows? Except I've never sought a meaning or purpose for my life, and have always believed that life is too astounding and wondrous to require justification.
Point of order, though, before I depart. I never said the objective was "control over the subjugated other". I said the objective was control of the world by inventing a more powerful projection of themselves and putting Him in charge, on the understanding that if we do his bidding, He will do ours. Thus, patriarchal religions partially fulfill this objective by giving the privileged few (the god-anointed monarch, the high priest, the pope or ayatollah) control over the faithful through their interpretation of the deity's will.
Quoting javra
I would classify that as political philosophy, rather than metaphysics.
And it's true that one can go to war for liberty... but only if another attempts to subjugate him.
First, this is an exceedingly limited view of what metaphysics entails. More to the point of this one reply, doesn't this then mean that we are subjugated to Him? Otherwise expressed, how can one control the world without in any way subjugating it?
Quoting Vera Mont
:100:
Perhaps you even married him?
Quoting javra
Sure, and the people "interpreting" His will. But unlike conquest: you are persuaded to place yourself under their rule: you can't fight back.
Quoting javra
In religion, by imploring and bribing (with sacrifice) the deity to fix your weather, grow your crops, keep the floods off your land, smite your enemies and win your football games.
(I never said this part worked!)
Quoting universeness
Not Horace - just a nice, clever man who never did any military service.
Nice. Is the following still the case?
Since 1940, the United States has required all able-bodied males aged 18 to 25 to register with the Selective Service, meaning they could be drafted into military service if required. However, the United States has not had to use the Selective Service since 1973 due to the high number of voluntary recruits.
I guess - we're not in or from the US. They make so many underprivileged, unemployable kids, and so many movies glorifying armed violence, it's easy enough to recruit, especially if you lie to them about opportunities and terms of service.
Generalizations are abstractions from immediate reality (opinions ; beliefs), and shouldn't be "pushed" into the realm of "accurate" empirical Facts. However, your "guess" is also a conjecture, and may not apply to specific situations.
For example, Jesus said, Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. Hence, self-denial & self-sacrifice are sometimes deemed necessary expressions of dedicated Faith. That's why people acting-out an "intense relationship" can be scary to those of us who are more selfish, and less devoted to an imaginary deity : e.g. suicide bombers. Besides, I suspect that some of those sacrificial "volunteers" may be more committed to their faith community than to their Allah. Their meaning-of-life may be more social than religious. But that's just a guess. :wink:
The religious impulse may be directed at other than a named deity: it can take the form of hero-worship, obsessive love or patriotism.
But I've often heard (in movies, not from anyone I know personally) someone declaring that they joined the armed forces because they found meaning/purpose in being part of something greater than themselves. Not a community garden, not a crafters' co-op, not Habitat for Humanity or Amnesty International - the army. I suspect* what they really wanted was a bigger, more disciplined social structure, where their individual insecurity would be subsumed by the fraternity.
*not a conclusion, merely a conjecture.
Hey, more for my own reasons than anything associated with topics in this thread: Ambiguous dictionary definitions aside, do you find no semantic difference between
1) X controls what Y does.
and
2) X influences what Y does.
To me - while the two can overlap in extreme cases - (1) always conveys that Y is in one way or another puppeteered by X (e.g. the TV's remote control puppeteers what the television set does from a distance) which to me is another way of saying that Y is (at least metaphorically) subjugated to X's whims, whereas (2) does not so necessarily convey (for example, it is an intrinsic aspect of any (non-coercive) conversation imaginable: what one says will always influence what the other says back - this without controlling what the other person says back - thereby producing the inter-course of dialogue).
In short, for me, control is one relatively minor subset of influence, but influence does not equate to control.
I get your reply above, but with the understanding of terms I've presented, I take it that prayers and such are generally about influencing situations rather than controlling them (even if it might not work all the same). Still, I'm far more interested in whether you find semantic differences between (1) and (2).
Yes. It's the divine sock-puppet who is expected to do the actual controlling on the petitioners' behalf. Therefore, if the prayer is answered, you give thanks (not to the surgeon who saved your child, but to God for letting him do it) ; if it isn't, obviously, you made the wrong sacrifice, or didn't deserve a reward. Catch 22 for the faithful; failsafe for the god and its representatives. It's a terrific scam, religion; that's why it's lasted so long.
BTW, what exactly is metaphysical about the bible? Does it present any logical arguments anywhere regarding existence ... or merely tell you what is on grounds of these tellings being His word? "God did it" isn't much of a metaphysical argument for anything, after all.
Narrow might or might not be on target; wide would be far too general. In any case, it was a facetious appraisal, not an in-depth analysis. I could take religions - each in its own historical and cultural context - seriously, but that's a different discussion, not answering the questions "How do we seek the meaning of life?" and "Are we special?"
Quoting javra
Ask a theologian. I have made no claims here regarding that document.
Two sets of ideas or endeavors having the same or a similar purpose does not make them interdependent.
But thats my point. All we have is guesses, no matter who you are.
I mostly agree with your other points.
Well, I'm just a man, you know. Perhaps "plod on" is more to your taste. Or "endeavor to persevere." I won't explain that reference, for fear you'll write "Geez!" yet again.
And rum, sodomy and the lash as Churchill would say. Those English.
I confess I was being a bit silly myself.
(creatively & thoughtfully)¹
Catholic theology is quite broad, but in general the idea isn't that we can do meaningful things [I]for[/I] God, at least not in the way we would do things for friends, for our country, etc. The closest equivalent might be that we can do such things for the church, the immanent body of Christ in the world. This is a trend across Christianity because it is a sentiment expressed fairly clearly in the Bible. For example, in Kings and Chronical, God asks Solomon why God needs a temple made from fine wood and gold; "are these not all the work of my own hands." Humans cannot do favors for God.
That said, they can love God and love each other, which is what God wants, for reasons that would require a good deal more space to fully flesh out.
Nor do we ascend towards God through our doing. Everything, our very existence, and talents we might have, are come from God after all. The world might be a ladder up to God (Saint Bonneventure), but it is a ladder provided by grace.
I think where people get tripped up here is in comparison to Protestant Reformed/Calvinistic theology, where any faith in God must be the product of a supernatural miracle, the working of the Holy Spirit. In Orthodox and Catholic theology, we can come to know God through "natural" means (Romans 1:20), but this doesn't allow us to "boast" in our salvation, since nature itself is a gift from God grace.
The meaning of life in Catholic and Orthodox theology isn't that different, despite being framed in different terms. Man's nature of fulfilled in the contemplation of God. The purpose of life is theosis and diefication, the adoption of man into the family of whom Jesus Christ is the first born son. "Ye shall be Gods." The sacraments and holy life lead towards a progressive justification (salvation from the consequences of sin) and sanctification, the transformation of the individual, and moreso the corporate body into the divine. The end goal is to be "filled onto the fullness of God," mystical union whereby "Christ lives in us and we in Christ. As Jesus puts it in John 17, we will be one as Christ and the Father are one; finite copies of the infinite divine nature.
Protestant theology tends to separate justification and sanctification, which tends to shift the focus towards justification, avoiding punishment. This is true in the Catholic tradition, but to a much lesser extent. The Catechism includes Saint Athanasius' "God became man that man might become God." The Orthodox patrimony,.or Eastern Rite Catholics, tend to put more focus on theosis and healing than on moral behavior vis-á-vis justification.
In some ways, theosis, illumination, and diefication are akin to ideas about enlightenment, or "attaining gnosis," although they tend to go beyond special knowledge into a more general transformation of the person.
In your talks, the main issue was forgotten, what is life? Is it possible to provide a definition for it? What is your definition specifically?
- In another discussion, one can ask what is a human being? Why does he exist? And why should he be?
- In another discussion, you can ask what is the world? Why is it? Where are we in it? Are we alone?
- In another discussion, you can ask if there is a God? What is He? Is the world and everything in it created by Him? Why is there a God? And why do we think that there is a God? ) What does he want? What is his purpose in creating the universe? What do we want from him and what are we looking for?
- In the final discussion, we can ask if there is an end to the history of the world? At the end of history, what will happen to humanity? In which direction will it go? Is the end of human history separate from the end of world history? And etc.
These are questions that have occupied philosophy and science for centuries. The answer to these questions, like many other fundamental questions, may be beyond the ability of man and his knowledge, but we should not stop trying and at least try on an individual level. until we found a convincing answer for our awakened and restless conscience - if we are restless and worried inside - however, in recent years, science and philosophy have reduced their efforts to deal with fundamental questions and devoted their efforts to utilitarianism and profit. They have taken as much knowledge as possible for their own benefit. Fundamental sciences have partially given way to applied sciences, and the question: "What is the benefit of understanding the truth?" has replaced the question: "What is truth?" However, one should not be discouraged.
But know that basic questions require basic answers. Although the answers may be personal and not universal, they require years of work, effort, study and thought.
So try, search, try, search and etc.
sometimes maybe this same trying and searching is the meaning of your life.
Guess what? Creation has a Creator and is all about creation, i.e., purpose and meaning.
Without a Creator, there would be no purpose and meaning.