The meaning of life.

Post Reply New Topic

I was raised catholic...all the coordinated rituals seemed really bizarre to me, and I was in the church from birth till age 17 when I refused confirmation. I visited a few other churches at that point, mainly for peer group activities, and I noticed a lot of protestants spend an inordinate amount of time with the old testament, especially where god is angry. That's one thing I appreciated about the catholic diocese I was in, they were very heavy on the new testament which happens to be the testament with the superior philosophy in my opinion.

I think that the perspectives of the religious, the nihilist, and the all that you have addressed are very much more complex than your post would suggest.

Finding meaning through Mathematics is an excellent approach and if it continues to please you, remain steadfast in your pursuit.

Over many years I have grown in appreciation of the complexity of this Universe and I am not even close to understanding it. I'm inclined to say that any answer to your original question is purely subjective and arbitrary, but of that I cannot be certain. Maybe there is only one correct answer, I cannot rule it out.

Above all enjoy your exploration.

I'm not a Nihilist, I simply pointed out that the OP was rather disparaging towards people of that persuasion. I certainly don't hold a Nihilist belief. I don't believe in any "meaning" to life simply because to do so stems from human arrogant. We are biologically animals, we can see what happens to other animals when they die but presumably from pride centered on a belief in human superiority people have invented alternative realities for ourselves that make no rational sense. Is there an earwig Heaven? Do sheep, which do not kill or takes lives, reach a state of Nirvana? No, they simply die and their constituent atoms eventually become incorporated within other things, which is all that happens to us. Minds cease to exist at death and physical materials are recycled. Ultimately the universe, and everything in it, has no purpose except to exist.

Would it be fair to say you have some nihilistic beliefs?
I identify with some aspects of existential nihilism, but the philosophy has come to me, not me to the philosophy...

Basically I am saying my focus is on the truth, and if that truth happens to incorporate an aspect of a certain philosophy, so be it...

The parable about the blind men and the elephant:
"The Buddha twice uses the simile of blind men led astray. In the Canki Sutta he describes a row of blind men holding on to each other as an example of those who follow an old text that has passed down from generation to generation.[6] In the Udana (68–69)[7] he uses the elephant parable to describe sectarian quarrels. A king has the blind men of the capital brought to the palace, where an elephant is brought in and they are asked to describe it.

When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king went to each of them and said to each: 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'

The men assert the elephant is either like a pot (the blind man who felt the elephant's head), a winnowing basket (ear), a plowshare (tusk), a plow (trunk), a granary (body), a pillar (foot), a mortar (back), a pestle (tail) or a brush (tip of the tail).

The men cannot agree with one another and come to blows over the question of what it is like and their dispute delights the king. The Buddha ends the story by comparing the blind men to preachers and scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views: "Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Interesting posts. I am personally using the same approach as OP, researching the depths of existence trough mathematics and physics.
I personally think it is obvious that Existence itself has no purpose(except, maybe to exist), and so do not life have a purpose either(Macro). The only purposes are personally opinions which are a result of your nature and experience of Existence(Micro). One's nature is a result of one's material , or more precisely neurological and genetic composition. We see this in humans aswell as animal behaviour. Whatever life there is, life will seek what is enjoyable for it.
Therefore I "believe" that our collective philosophy should base itself upon exploring as much of Existence as possible, and enjoy it to the fullest.
Since you discussed religions earlier, I would like to share something which I am sure some of you will recognise. My awe for Existence is unlimited. This awe and sense of beauty and nostalgia I get from thinking of the Universe and Existence as a whole is of such spiritual quality that I believe someone would consider me highly religious. As a gratitude towards existing, I have come to the conclusion I would like to understand as much of it as I, of my own neurological composition is able to, while ensuring I do take the right action based on my understanding of it, to assist what I perceive to be the positive sides of it.

The "nihlists" argument has a bit of a false equivalency fallacy to it. While nihlists may occupy one position, there are plenty of people - many of whom are scientists and the like - who have come to the conclusion that "life" is simply a set of criteria. Use of energy, reproduction, that sort of thing. And distilling that down along that line of thought, it's not even the individuals that are key in life as we know it; it is the genes which have the quality of replication. Bodies are simply biological vehicles that *sets* of genes that do well when the travel together use to ensure continued existence. And all of this is not because of some overwhelming "drive" to survive over time; they do so simply because ones without that quality do not survive over time. It's a skewed sample taken to the extreme and so it appears to be mysterious or significant.

However, those same people - the organized systems of support and protection for said gene sets - have self consciousness. And those consciousnesses, while seen as not existing independent of the neural connections & little more than a sum of genetics, development and experience...can and do decide that they have their own independent purpose for their time.

I have my issues with Dawkins, but ...yeah, pretty much.

I read the book in my early 20s...
Changed my life view...

How about 42? [Oh, wait...that's the Ultimate Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything. Never mind].
In all seriousness, I believe that everyone is here on Earth for a specific purpose, and our life journey is all about finding and fulfilling that purpose.

We'd like to think so, but closer clinical/objective analysis would suggest not...

IMO giving things meaning is just a habit "subjects" (living organisms like humans) have. Subjects give things meaning and think that's a thing but actually it's just a self-fabricated thought. Objective meaning, if it exists, can't be experienced by subjects from what I understand. Subjective meaning doesn't exist without subjects.

Question: What will happen when eventually our sun will die? We are pretty much screwed if we don't find a way to deal with that situation...
What do we do? Find a way to simulate a sun? Use our fastest way of travel to find another planet that suits us? Evolve into beings that can survive in space? Prolong the existence of our sun indefinitely? I wonder what will happen then...
If we/everything in this universe dies, does the meaning of it all matter?

Silly earthling, don't you know God makes the sun glow and he'll never let it go out because he loves us all so much....[gag].

You've got approximately 5 billion years to figure that out, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

I've already started building my bunker in preparation against our sun becoming a red giant...
It pays to be prepared...as are the scouts...