Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 27, 2010 at 7:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So it's pointless?
It is a very human thing to see patterns and purpose where there is none.
Basically our life has no point, no reason.
Why should it?
To think that your life holds some greater purpose is just an arrogance.
'Shit happens' and two of those things that happened were you and me.
Ok, slow the boat there a sec. I agree with the first statement. I can possibly conceed that it has no self-discernable reason. I just wanted to add that's it's not meaningless though. I don't think it's simply arrogance to feel your life holds great purpose. But you said greater purpose, greater than what?
What if our purpose is to give reason? What if our purpose is superintelligent fertilizer? Just because we currently can rationalize what the purpose is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Life does not have meaning because meaning is not a property that may be ascribed to life. There is nothing in the definition of life that requires meaning; to claim life requires meaning when meaning is so distinct, varied or nonexistent among many people proves that the ascribed property to be part of human nature, not life.
Nice thought Syn. I like it. Maybe I'd go more with purpose. Also: 'meaning' is something that could be applied posthumously. Maybe 'purpose' too. For whatever reason we'd maybe like our lives to have had purpose and meaning. I'm pretty unambitious myself.. but then would my purpose have been anti ambition.
So are you sayigng we can't objectify purpose from living or that there is no purpose? Even if that purpose is to filter O2 to CO2 or to be a link on the food chain, living implies being and being is purpose. If you're saying emphatically no purpose at all exists I'm going to have to ask for some serious citations of logic and reason.
I'm not saying that tacky: if that was directed at me. I don't know how it applies... but I'm unconvinced either way, if slightly on the side of purpose.
(January 31, 2010 at 1:24 am)tackattack Wrote: So are you sayigng we can't objectify purpose from living or that there is no purpose? Even if that purpose is to filter O2 to CO2 or to be a link on the food chain, living implies being and being is purpose. If you're saying emphatically no purpose at all exists I'm going to have to ask for some serious citations of logic and reason.
No - you cannot, and your limited view of assigning 'purpose' proves just that. There is no purpose because of definitions - you cannot objectively assign purpose to life. Not to mention, your argument reminds me of utilitarianism, as it arbitrarily assigns 'purpose' with no consideration for change or growth.
There is no purpose by definition of biological life alone. I've laid out consistent groundwork in my previous posts and I am using established definitions to make my case.
I can't ask for citations of logic and reason? Well that's a first. Since I'm not farmiliar with the thread where you proved there is no meaning to life and you are unwilling to provide it I'll start. Since I believe that there is meaning to life the burden of proof will probably fall on me in a debate anyways. I don't feel my view is limited, but please open my eyes. If it's all been said before please point me in that direction, but let's leave the Ad Hominemand Ad Fontem out of it ok?
Ok first definitions:
A- Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not.
B-Purpose is a result, end, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken
C- Meaning is to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate. Meaning is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they mean (intend, express or signify)
D-Sign is defined as an entity that indicates another entity to some agent for some purpose
1-When given the option of life or death general rational acceptance would be for life
2-Choice proves intentionality of life.
3-Therefore intentional choosing to live is defined as having a purpose.
4-The most base purpose then being sustaining biological processes.
5-The result of sustaining a biological process is significant because it impacts others
6-The significance varies by agent
7- Therefore Life has purpose and significance that varies between agents.
8-Therefore Life has meaning
(January 31, 2010 at 11:03 pm)tackattack Wrote: I can't ask for citations of logic and reason? Well that's a first. Since I'm not farmiliar with the thread where you proved there is no meaning to life and you are unwilling to provide it I'll start. Since I believe that there is meaning to life the burden of proof will probably fall on me in a debate anyways. I don't feel my view is limited, but please open my eyes. If it's all been said before please point me in that direction, but let's leave the Ad Hominemand Ad Fontem out of it ok?
Ok first definitions:
A- Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not.
B-Purpose is a result, end, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken
C- Meaning is to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate. Meaning is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they mean (intend, express or signify)
D-Sign is defined as an entity that indicates another entity to some agent for some purpose
1-When given the option of life or death general rational acceptance would be for life
2-Choice proves intentionality of life.
3-Therefore intentional choosing to live is defined as having a purpose.
4-The most base purpose then being sustaining biological processes.
5-The result of sustaining a biological process is significant because it impacts others
6-The significance varies by agent
7- Therefore Life has purpose and significance that varies between agents.
8-Therefore Life has meaning
So if I choose not to die then I am giving myself 'purpose'.
This seems like clumsy use of language to me.
This is an action that any creature would do on instinct.
Would you call instinct 'purpose' I wouldn't.
But even if you insist on your use of 'purpose' I would still say that life lacks all meaning.
(January 31, 2010 at 11:03 pm)tackattack Wrote: I can't ask for citations of logic and reason? Well that's a first. Since I'm not farmiliar with the thread where you proved there is no meaning to life and you are unwilling to provide it I'll start. Since I believe that there is meaning to life the burden of proof will probably fall on me in a debate anyways. I don't feel my view is limited, but please open my eyes. If it's all been said before please point me in that direction, but let's leave the Ad Hominemand Ad Fontem out of it ok?
Ok first definitions:
A- Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not.
B-Purpose is a result, end, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken
C- Meaning is to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate. Meaning is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they mean (intend, express or signify)
D-Sign is defined as an entity that indicates another entity to some agent for some purpose
1-When given the option of life or death general rational acceptance would be for life
2-Choice proves intentionality of life.
3-Therefore intentional choosing to live is defined as having a purpose.
4-The most base purpose then being sustaining biological processes.
5-The result of sustaining a biological process is significant because it impacts others
6-The significance varies by agent
7- Therefore Life has purpose and significance that varies between agents.
8-Therefore Life has meaning
I am arguing that your assertions are groundless via definitions. It is not ad fontem, which is defined as "a class of fallacies that all work by distracting from the real issue by redirecting the argument onto the Source." I am holding you to the definitions previously mentioned, with the occasional emotional outburst that manifests itself as an ad hominem. You see, I get tired of point out to you the same definitions over and over again, only to have you counter with baseless assertions.
Now, here is why your proof is wrong.
1 is false, because not all biological things have the capacity for thought. Also, giving the 'option' for life is a clumsy statement that simply makes no sense. To whom and how do you give life? Are you asking what is already alive to decide between life and death? Really? And you are certain there is no bias?
Since this is entirely subjective among thinking beings and thoroughy mutable, it can be disregarded on grounds for being nonspecific and overtly general.
Your statement on "general rational acceptance" for life is also false - it implies argumentum ad popularium and fails to consider the situation for those where it is better for them to die than suffer tremendously.
2 is false - a fetus, for example, does not have the capacity for choice and yet is naturally brought into the world under most circumstances, so to assert choice on the part of the new thinking individual is false. And do not try claiming that the parent wants it, because that is side stepping the point here.
3 is independant of other pieces and is more of a defined given. Its statement is unneeded, and contributes as an axiom, not a proof.
4 is false, as previously noted that life is not a choice by any means.
5, 6, 7 are subjective, where an individual contributes to their own interpretation of life, thus proving that life does not have an inherent meaning, but is granted meaning by an individual.
8 is true only through dependance on 5,6,7; which in turn do not depend on 1-4. 1-4 are based on false assumptions.
February 2, 2010 at 3:29 am (This post was last modified: February 2, 2010 at 3:30 am by tackattack.)
so meaning is granted by individuals? I agree. However all of us have a varied definition of what value to place on that meaning. You are asserting that there is no meaning. I have meaning to my life, and while it's subjective, ephemeral and intangible, it is as real to me as Math is. So you're statement can't be true without qualification of "There is no objective meaning to life based in the tangible" which I would agree with.
1- self-sustaining biological organisms with the capability of rational thought instinctualy/consciously choose life over death.
2- When organisms in 1 choose consciously to live towards some end, by definition give purpose to life
3- The lowest common purpose arrived at would be to perpetuate the biological process.
4- The significance of sustaining biological process vaires by individual.
5- Life has purpose with variable subjective significance to organisms from 1
6- Life, by definition of meaning, has subjective meaning for individuals presented in 1
