What is the meaning of life?

[Maryring]

For me, the meaning of life could be succinctly summarized in the following sentence.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Of course, there's uncountable other answers to the question, but for me, the Categorical Imperatives of Kant is where it's at.

[Asta Kask]

But that's a question of how should I act, not what should I find meaning in? Are you saying that we should find meaning in acting according to the Categorical Imperative? (Not to mention that Kant gives three distinct interpretations of it)?

I'm more of a virtue-ethics guy myself, although I admit it's difficult to find the correct virtues.

Is it ever morally acceptable to lie?

[Maryring]

That's what I'm saying yeah.

To clarify, for me, the meaning of life is to act in a good and proper manner. Doesn't matter what you do, as long as you do it with good will. The will to do good is, for me, if not the, then certainly *a* reason to exist.

[Asta Kask]

But how do you know what is good and proper behavior? For instance, do you agree with Kant that lying is always wrong?

[Razade]

But how do you know what is good and proper behavior? For instance, do you agree with Kant that lying is always wrong?

That's something a society decides mostly.

[Lheticus]

In my view, the meaning of life is to develop one's potential. I conjecture that as a larval soul, there is some static factor to the world outside the mortal universe that prevents newly formed souls from growing and developing and enriching themselves through experience, and so we come into this world as mortal beings for that purpose.

Either that, or there's some OTHER reason elements of that realm would rather us grow and develop as mortals in the mortal universe instead of the more eternal realm.

[Asta Kask]

That's something a society decides mostly.

But NOT according to Kant. According to Kant, that is something that can and must be decided by using reason.

[Razade]

But NOT according to Kant. According to Kant, that is something that can and must be decided by using reason.

Ok? And why should we care what Kant says exactly over what Spinoza said or Nietzsche said and so on and so forth. I was answering the first part of your question to Marrying because it's what's more important. To beans and back to what ever Philosophers have to say about anything with any practical use.

[Asta Kask]

Because I was asking Maryring, who thinks Kant has the best solution.

[Maryring]

But how do you know what is good and proper behavior? For instance, do you agree with Kant that lying is always wrong?

Simple answer? I don't. I don't perfectly know what is a good action. I'm not omniscient, so I can't ever expect to have perfect knowledge. So I'm not going to assume the mantle of any sort of knowledge. But I have several thoughts and reasons for actions.

Do I believe I shouldn't lie? Yes. But then you have the maxim of that you should act in an uncompassionate manner and inflict suffering upon others.

I'm guessing that you're aimed at guiding the discussion towards one of the first criticisms that was pointed towards the Imperatives. That by the maxim of "You shall not lie" then you can't lie to a murderer looking to kill someone. I'm going to bypass the whole debate on consequences and go to the core of why I believe in such imperatives. It's because I believe in a world where everyone lives by Good Will. If no one lied, if everyone acted with compassion towards one another, then there wouldn't be a murderer in the first place.

And frankly, how can I expect others not to lie, and others to act compassionate towards others, if I myself am not willing to do so myself?

[warty goblin]

The meaning of life is very simple: you're not dead yet. As Gandalf put it, all you have to do is decide what to do with the time that is given to you. I think this is probably as good an expression as any other of what it means to be alive, which seems like the more interesting question.

The really important question is when do you choose ice cream?

[Asta Kask]

Ok? And why should we care what Kant says exactly over what Spinoza said or Nietzsche said and so on and so forth. I was answering the first part of your question to Marrying because it's what's more important. To beans and back to what ever Philosophers have to say about anything with any practical use.

Why should we get rid of what philosophers have said about things of practical use? Why?

Simple answer? I don't. I don't perfectly know what is a good action. I'm not omniscient, so I can't ever expect to have perfect knowledge. So I'm not going to assume the mantle of any sort of knowledge. But I have several thoughts and reasons for actions.

Do I believe I shouldn't lie? Yes. But then you have the maxim of that you should act in an uncompassionate manner and inflict suffering upon others.

I'm guessing that you're aimed at guiding the discussion towards one of the first criticisms that was pointed towards the Imperatives. That by the maxim of "You shall not lie" then you can't lie to a murderer looking to kill someone. I'm going to bypass the whole debate on consequences and go to the core of why I believe in such imperatives. It's because I believe in a world where everyone lives by Good Will. If no one lied, if everyone acted with compassion towards one another, then there wouldn't be a murderer in the first place.

And frankly, how can I expect others not to lie, and others to act compassionate towards others, if I myself am not willing to do so myself?

It's a good answer.

I see it like this - there are many schools of ethics, but most of them agree in regards to what one may call a normal life. There's a convergence here. Now, in certain cases they all give weird results (that is, there are plausible scenarios where they give weird results) so none of them is perfect. So maybe we need to mix-and-match. Or perhaps the questions need to be clarified. Maybe there are areas of life where deontology will be best, maybe other areas require virtue ethics, and maybe there are some where only utilitarianism will do. Or maybe there's some grand unified theory underlying all three. There are interesting results coming out of the laboratory about how people actually behave (see Trolley problems and Moral Foundations.)

[SiuiS]

But NOT according to Kant. According to Kant, that is something that can and must be decided by using reason.

We are not discussing Kant.

Because I was asking Maryring, who thinks Kant has the best solution.

No, you asked Maryring, who independently came to similar surface conclusions as Kant. Basic causation/correlation issues, you know better. Tsk tsk.

[Asta Kask]

I interpreted Maryring differently.

But okay. Should we do what the community decides? And why?

To start with, what community? The forumites? The Internet users? The people of Earth?

[Maryring]

To be fair to Asta, I did say "but for me, the Categorical Imperatives of Kant is where it's at." Which is perfectly fair to understand as meaning "I follow Kant's teachings", even though it would be more correct to state that I've come to conclusions that are superficially similar to Kant. But unlike him, I can't see myself wholly ignoring consequences in preference for intent. The road to hell and all that.

That said, I think putting stock in what others decide to be good won't work in the long run. You need to take what others say to be good. View it. Understand it. And once you can reason that "Yes, this is good because X" then you should begin doing it. I choose to make an active effort not to lie, not because it said so in the bible, or my mother would say that whenever she didn't like what I was saying, but because being honest builds trust and certainty. If people know me to be honest, then they know that my words are a solid foundation upon which they can choose how to act. This gives them stability, which in turn helps them do and be better people themselves.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm a young person starting to grow up and mature. I'm going to be on my own relatively soon. But i've got some plans and options but not completely know what I want to do with my life. But that's a deferent problem and is not what I'm exactly asking.

What I'm asking is, what is the meaning of life?

The question is incomplete. Meaning is something that implies an observer. Something only has meaning in relationship to an entity.

In other words, a more complete question would be "what is the meaning of life for #entity?"

It would be better still if you were to define more precisely what you mean by life. After all, there is a significant difference between the life of a mosquito and say, your own life.

As for me, I don't bother to assign things meaning beyond observable data. I view the question as equivalent to asking the dollar value of the color purple.

[enderlord99]

I view the question as equivalent to asking the dollar value of the color purple.

USD $4060.00/gram.

[S@tanicoaldo]

My personal opinion is this:

Try to give back to the world twice as much happiness as you take.

So if you smiled once you have to make two other people smile.

[Findpathfencer]

There are 20 different meanings of life if you're using the word as a noun, and 4 if it's an adjective.

See for yourself.

On the contrary, that's exactly why all those things exist to begin with. If everybody knew what the meaning of life was, we'd have either stopped pursuing the above or never invented them to begin with.

But yeah, the real meaning of life is thus: GOATS.
And what gives purpose to life? Iunno. Motivation. Wanting to buy things. Wanting to fix problems you have. Et cetera.

NO!!!!! Dude you said Iunno. "Sploosh" green slim falls on your head.

I've got to ask, with all the forum rules, what were you expecting? As you pointed out there are entire fields of study on this topic. If you want wide ranging topics I'd suggest going and looking at those instead of a highly moderated PG rated Message Board.

{{scrubbed}}

The question is incomplete. Meaning is something that implies an observer. Something only has meaning in relationship to an entity.

In other words, a more complete question would be "what is the meaning of life for #entity?"

It would be better still if you were to define more precisely what you mean by life. After all, there is a significant difference between the life of a mosquito and say, your own life.

As for me, I don't bother to assign things meaning beyond observable data. I view the question as equivalent to asking the dollar value of the color purple.

One who complains solves nothing. If one sees a problem and cares anuff to complain then he should fix the problem and not half heartily tell him the fix it him self.

But what you proposed back is wrong and misses the point.

The meaning of life is a question concerning every one(even you) and is a question that means many thing with many parts of those many meanings. The two biggest meanings is a personnel one and one concerning every one.

So your saying that mosquitos are something vastly deferent from people or even life?

Yes color does have dollar value,especially purple.

Endear lord, by the power given to me be no one, you are awesome.

[Aedilred]

One who complains solves nothing. If one sees a problem and cares anuff to complain then he should fix the problem and not half heartily tell him the fix it him self.

Not so sure about that. There are lots of things that are worthy of complaint that the complainant can't fix themselves. That is in fact a large part of the point in the police and justice system in most countries. We can't redefine your question for you - or, well, we can try, but it relies on your accepting the proposed redefinition, which you didn't.

(Incidentally, and without wishing to be overly snide, does your belief in this principle extend to identifying spelling mistakes? My inner correctionist is twitching).

So your saying that mosquitos are something vastly deferent from people or even life?

No, just that the life of a mosquito is only at its most basic level comparable to that of a human. Insofar as we can tell, mosquitos are incapable of voicing the question "what is the meaning of life?" So in any sense in which the meaning of life includes discursive curiosity about itself, mosquitos aren't capable of that. The question is largely dependent on subject - those capable of articulating and considering the question may have their own ideas, although not all will; some living things aren't capable even of entertaining the idea as far as we can tell.

You can strip it back to its most basic level, but at that point the subject is so broad and the question so vague it's very difficult even to consider meaningfully. As I mentioned before - and while Douglas Adams was joking, at the heart of the joke is a kernel of truth - determining the right question in this instance is if anything even harder, and even more subjective, than working out "the answer". Even at a very basic inquisitorial level, are we asking what, why or how? Each of those would have different answers, and any of them could suffice as "meaning".

[Razade]

Why should we get rid of what philosophers have said about things of practical use? Why?

I didn't say get rid of it, not once did I say that. I asked why we should care what they had to say on any matter. What makes them authorities on such matters? If Kant is correct he's correct not because he's Kant but because what he says is true. I was asking why we should take his or any other Philosopher's word for anything when they haven't demonstrated the truth of what they're proposing. If Kant held that water was wet, I'd believe it. But not because Kant believed it or said it but because I could verify it through other means. I hope that makes it clearer. I don't care what a bunch of old dead guys have to say unless it's True and even then, it wouldn't matter if they said it or not because it doesn't make anything else they said true just because they got the one thing right.

I interpreted Maryring differently.

But okay. Should we do what the community decides? And why?

To start with, what community? The forumites? The Internet users? The people of Earth?

I didn't say communities either, I said Society but it's a quibble I guess. You and I are part of several mostly overlapping communities which by merit of numbers dictate by consensus what is just and what is right. They don't always get it correct but Society, however slowly, is a self correcting machine since in general Humans want to better the lives of their offspring and their own life. Should we do what Society decides. That's up to you. As for the why we should, that one is easier. Because Society and communities generally have things in place to punish or restrict those who refuse or decide they're unable to live by the rules of that Society.

Is that correct? Is that right? Maybe, maybe not but it's the world we live in. Society says Murder is wrong because we as a species view life as better than no-life. If you don't agree with that consensus and go off and murder a bunch of people then the community you live in and society as a whole will have something to say about it. And we know that we're not the only species to follow this general system to a lesser extent. Other primates do it, wolves and dolphins do it to an extent either. The idea of a "Society" or a "Community" isn't something special just to us. It has something to do with us being social animals. Who'd have thunk it.

[Aedilred]

I didn't say get rid of it, not once did I say that. I asked why we should care what they had to say on any matter. What makes them authorities on such matters?

I would posit the principal reason is that they've given the matter more thought than we have, and possibly ever will. They've also usually made an effort to educate themselves on what people who have put similar quantities of thought into the subject have said. It's the same reason you might listen to any expert.

Experts aren't always right, and laymen not necessarily wrong. People self-medicate without seeing a doctor, and represent themselves in court without the assistance of a lawyer. However the experts are usually better-equipped to identify the pitfalls and problems with a given course of action or chain of reasoning, and present helpful and informed suggestions that people might well not reach on their own.

It's a sad tendency noted by many humanities specialists of my acquaintance that many people consider expertise and education irrelevant just because the conclusions reached in that field aren't conclusively provable, and would rather, as Mitchell and Webb put it, rely on their "internet-assembled philosophy" after "thinking about it for twenty minutes and thinking they've come to some interesting conclusions".

[ORione]

Life is a board game that was created by Milton Bradley.

[SiuiS]

To be fair to Asta, I did say "but for me, the Categorical Imperatives of Kant is where it's at."

Then that's my mistake. In quote editing that got attributed to someone else. Sorry Anders.

USD $4060.00/gram.

Ha!

{{scrubbed}}

There are so many things this person doesn't understand that they have become blind to the unspoken and unhinted-at ulterior motive you have but won't be open about? That's not relevant to the question asked at all...

Endear lord, by the power given to me be no one, you are awesome(and a smart ass)

Huh?

Not so sure about that. There are lots of things that are worthy of complaint that the complainant can't fix themselves.

You are kinda saying the same thing as the other guy though.

You can strip it back to its most basic level, but at that point the subject is so broad and the question so vague it's very difficult even to consider meaningfully. As I mentioned before - and while Douglas Adams was joking, at the heart of the joke is a kernel of truth - determining the right question in this instance is if anything even harder, and even more subjective, than working out "the answer". Even at a very basic inquisitorial level, are we asking what, why or how? Each of those would have different answers, and any of them could suffice as "meaning".

Yuss.

Life is a board game that was created by Milton Bradley.

Yes. But what does it mean?

[Razade]

{{scrubbed}}

{{scrubbed}}

[Mystic Muse]

{{scrubbed}}

Pffft. That's TWO words, silly.

{{scrubbed}}

[An Enemy Spy]

The meaning of life is to be alive. It's to eat, sleep, breathe and if you feel so inclined, make sure somebody will be around after you to do the same thing. Everything else is just gravy.

[Razade]

Pffft. That's TWO words, silly.

Semantics!

{{scrubbed}}

SiuS summed it up pretty well. The reply was pretty much what I expected from someone who, asking a question, dismisses the answers as being all to "same-y".

[SiuiS]

Aye.

The problem as I see it with these talks is there's a certain script you're going to get because anything else leads down a road that basically says the rules are made up and the points don't matter, and encourages misanthropy and immorality by it's language.

Take the Kant angle. The default response is to dissect someone's sensation of correctness until it doesn't make sense and fails some technical test and then say there must be something wrong with it. I'm honestly surprised at the ending we got, with Anders saying perhaps we should cobble together a working morality, when he has already done a lot of te groundwork for discrediting the need for morality*.

We as people have established that emotional intelligence exists. But we still insist that the answer to everything must be some boiled down fortune cookie nugget of logical thought, for some reason. If someone says they know Right when they see it (or Meaning, or Morality), they'll be asked why or how. They will often either stumble through logic, or say in some form that they just know the way that resonates with them, intuitively. To which the response is almost always the same;

"that's stupid, it couldn't be right because it doesn't always work and there's no way to independently verify it."

But really, that's so backwards. That's the smartest possible answer, and blindly applying a tool that doesn't work to a situation and insisting it's the right one for the job – forcing an objective logical universal synopsis of something that isn't objective, logical or universal – is the stupid move. Recognizing that there's a core of meaning that most people can only define in the negative, that the question is inherently an intimate one and one of purely human perspective, and engaging honestly with it in those terms and recognizing the limits of any answer is the right way to do things, but is also what we are taught is wrong and invalid due to lack of objective logical benchmarks. And it's so silly.

The stance of an academic as some external force, examining humanity and life from the outside, can only lead to biased and faulty answers.





* not to say Anders actually did or intended anything of the sort. Just that the trend follows the same questioning, and lends the semblance of authority to the interrogations that eventually lead there.

[Razade]

Aye.

The problem as I see it with these talks is there's a certain script you're going to get because anything else leads down a road that basically says the rules are made up and the points don't matter, and encourages misanthropy and immorality by it's language.

Take the Kant angle. The default response is to dissect someone's sensation of correctness until it doesn't make sense and fails some technical test and then say there must be something wrong with it. I'm honestly surprised at the ending we got, with Anders saying perhaps we should cobble together a working morality, when he has already done a lot of te groundwork for discrediting the need for morality*.

We as people have established that emotional intelligence exists. But we still insist that the answer to everything must be some boiled down fortune cookie nugget of logical thought, for some reason. If someone says they know Right when they see it (or Meaning, or Morality), they'll be asked why or how. They will often either stumble through logic, or say in some form that they just know the way that resonates with them, intuitively. To which the response is almost always the same;

"that's stupid, it couldn't be right because it doesn't always work and there's no way to independently verify it."

But really, that's so backwards. That's the smartest possible answer, and blindly applying a tool that doesn't work to a situation and insisting it's the right one for the job – forcing an objective logical universal synopsis of something that isn't objective, logical or universal – is the stupid move. Recognizing that there's a core of meaning that most people can only define in the negative, that the question is inherently an intimate one and one of purely human perspective, and engaging honestly with it in those terms and recognizing the limits of any answer is the right way to do things, but is also what we are taught is wrong and invalid due to lack of objective logical benchmarks. And it's so silly.

The stance of an academic as some external force, examining humanity and life from the outside, can only lead to biased and faulty answers.





* not to say Anders actually did or intended anything of the sort. Just that the trend follows the same questioning, and lends the semblance of authority to the interrogations that eventually lead there.

There's a lot of reasons for this, all of them against the Forum Rules which is a shame because it's a good conversation to have. Maybe the only conversation worth truly having. The question of "What is the meaning of life" that the OP asked though doesn't inheretly bring us to the basic and most long lasting questions of Humanity, being "How do we build a just society." Which probably deserves it's own thread on a Forum we can talk about it without getting banned.

Don't know what else I can really add to this discussion so I'll leave it with the best advice I've been given. The Universe doesn't know or care we exist and we shouldn't act in a manner like it does.