The meaning of life

If your interest doesn't fit anywhere else, leave it here.
andyville
Posts: 142
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Fri 19 May 2006 14:06
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

The meaning of life

Post by andyville »

I would like to raise a question that I have been thinking about a lot lately. I used to think about it as a child, but it seems like I have not been thinking about it for many years now - not until now.

The question is: what (if any) is the meaning of life, from the perspectives of mankind on the one hand, and the individual human on the other hand? If you do not believe in such universal values, then what is the meaning of your life? If the answer is happiness, then what brings you true happiness?
Wintran
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Wintran »

Well, I actually believe I've found out the basic meaning of my life! It is to simply live, which is not really that simple... :? To stay alive I have to tackle a myriad of instincts and emotions, and how I handle and act on them decides if I become happy or not in the end. Becoming happy is really the opposite of death, so for me who believe that life is something positive, happiness is a desired state.

My instincts tell me to eat, avoid getting hurt, create relations with other people, avoid a bad conscience, learn and millions of other things. Now, I don't mean that I act on all instincts and emotions spontanously, but rather try to use my full knowledge, experience and ability as a human being to best handle my emotions in the given situation to achieve the best result possible.

So, according to my belief, the meaning of life, from the perspective of the individual human would be, like you said, to live and to truly live happily. In the end, I think this is really what the meaning of life for mankind is about as well, which should lead mankind to keep on living, spreading and evolving life.

If there is a larger universal goal that all life is reaching for I cannot say for certain (though speculating is fun), but I have found enough reasons to fully believe in life on its own, which gives me plenty of stuff to do, such as finding out what really brings me happiness... ;) All I can say is that I try to seek harmony in my emotional life, which means that I look at both my inner-self, my body and my surroundings to find problems or missing pieces that I might need to solve. What I try to avoid is getting stuck or becoming narrow-minded, because that'll only halt my development and hurt myself in the end.
Hannes
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

Pfff easy: 42. ;)

For me the meaning of life is experience. The Universal or Cosmic Game is a cyclic one, where individual parts of the cosmic energy, God if you like, separate themselves from the big whole, and start a series of experiences (lives), usually from a lower consciousness to a higher one. This keeps on gong until the individual, or soul if you want, remerges with the whole. Actually they never really separate, because everything is part of the big whole, but for all practical purposes they are.

I guess this is it in a nutshell.
spring
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by spring »

The meaning of life is to reproduce? I think black widow spiders are bitten to death and eaten by the female after they have mated as their work is done, their purpose in life fulfilled.

Childless people? The meaning of their life is to help make the world a better place for other people's children, mostly the children of their kith and kin.

I think it's a biological thing. That's why we are organic and not organic. There were no organic things on earth once. By a combination of fate, mathematically ordained, that is inevitable after millions, billions of years of existence of the planet earth given the conditions earth found itself in - the right combination of energy and minerals and water, a collection of atoms came together. They formed clusters that were able to reproduce simply, much how like crystals can take growth even though inorganic. This became more complex with systems developing that functioned like organs. Then after this the simplest of organic structures developed although there was no clear delineation between inorganic and organic as such. Reproduction was asexual at first and then through evolution reproduction became sexual ...

This means that if we take evolution back to its logical origins, we came from nothing more than carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. And when we die, we return to that state, ashes to ashes, dust to dust ....

Sorry, we are just giving ourselves delusions by thinking we are spiritual beings and we possess a soul and so on, we are as much spiritual and soul-possessing as a brainless microbe, a nervous system is just a product of evolution, is all ...
andyville
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri 19 May 2006 14:06
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by andyville »

Wintran:

Your outlook on life sounds very similar to an objectivist's view, to the extent where I suspect that you are - in fact - an obejctivist? If not, I must recommend the writings of Ayn Rand, especially "Philosophy - who needs it?" and, if you are more into the novel format, "Atlas shrugged" ("Och världen skälvde" in Swedish).


Oscar:

Your ideas remind me of the Hindu view of humans and their relation to Brahman - correct?


I personally must say I am struggling to find a lasting answer to the Big question; I go through phases of quite extreme views sometimes, just to come across new ideas later which force me to change my mind. If there is something I have learnt through this process (I hope) it is the importance of being humble; there is not a lot one human can now, and you have to be open (yet skeptical) to other people's ideas.

I guess some of the main phases I have gone through have been inspired by:

- evolutionary psychology (Dawkins, Darwins): the meaning of life is to be as successful as possible when it comes to reproduction; happiness is a concept entirely dependent on one's reproductive success; the human mind and body are tools developed only to ensure the survival of the individual's genes

- the philosophy of science (Kurzweil): the meaning of the human kind as a whole is to progress as far as possible in the fields of science and technology; the objectives of progress are to satisfy our natural curiosity, help us live as long as possible (possibly forever), increase human and/or artificial intelligence as far as possible, discover the universe and so on

- objectivism (Rand): the individual's main interest in life is survival; working to secure one's own survival is not only a moral right, but one's main obligation towards the rest of humanity; there are objective moral values and rights such as honesty, love for oneself and thereby the rest of humanity, the right to be free and creative

- dhamma (The Buddha): the meaning of life for the individual is to become as wise as possible, by looking within, thus eliminating suffering; phenomena such as compassion, lovingkindness, responsibility and so on naturally arise when a certain level of wisdom is achieved; life is unsatisfactory, impermanent and selfless

I guess the phase I find myself in right now would be the last one, which I am quite new to (at least I am quite new to actually giving the word of The Buddha serious consideration).


More thoughts, people!
spring
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by spring »

We are just a walking collection of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen that evolved to the point that we can reproduce. The instinct to reproduce is also evolutionary because of we hadn't possessed this, our species would have died out eons ago and so would have most forms of life, if they also hadn't posssessed this instinct.

It is rather a sad thing to contemplate but it is the truth. We are nothing more than a bunch of minerals, much like the minerals you find in the dirt. It is just fate that we were born human beings instead of being the minerals you find at the side of the road. We are sophisticated minerals if you like.
spring
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by spring »

Or complex machines made by chance. Not much different in essence to the machines you find that have been made by man. But the same as machines in that we are made from minerals and like machines or complex man-made systems, we produce something, in the case of man, we produce near-replicas of ourselves thorugh sexual reproduction, instead of producing widgets like machines.

Biological beings are nature's "machines".
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

andyville wrote:Oscar:

Your ideas remind me of the Hindu view of humans and their relation to Brahman - correct?
I think quite a few spiritual/philosphical views have similar background ideas, but this is actually Oscar's view, influenced heavily by CWG. I don't believe in karma, btw.
spring wrote:Sorry, we are just giving ourselves delusions by thinking we are spiritual beings and we possess a soul and so on, we are as much spiritual and soul-possessing as a brainless microbe, a nervous system is just a product of evolution, is all ...
How can you be so absolutely sure? The human race is only at the primitive stages of its development, and there are so many things we don't yet know, so to dismiss even the possibility of spirituality sounds a bit like saying we are alone in the universe...
andyville
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri 19 May 2006 14:06
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by andyville »

spring wrote:We are nothing more than a bunch of minerals, much like the minerals you find in the dirt.
I do not agree with this view. There are obvious differences between humans and "the minerals you find in the dirt"; humans are capable of free will, creativity, perception, emotion and so on.
spring wrote:Or complex machines made by chance.
I do not agree with this either. Evolution is a not a random process, but a very complex one. Through sexual selection and survival of the fittest, the human race has evolved to a degree of complexity which makes us the most sophisticated species on Earth.
spring wrote:Not much different in essence to the machines you find that have been made by man.
There is a very fundamental difference between the design of humans and that of machines; machines have been constructed by man, in order to be used for certain tasks. We have designed the machines to fill our needs. Humans, on the other hand, have evolved through the before mentioned mechanisms of natural selection and survival of the fittest. There is no purpose of this process that I am aware of, as in the case of the machines; or, rather, it is up to ourselves to define that purpose.
Wintran
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Wintran »

andyville:
That's an interesting observation! Actually, when I came up with this "philosophy" I hadn't read much at all about any other philosophies, so I wasn't inspired by objectivism in that sense. However, after reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29 I notice the similarities, though I also sense some differences. I think I'll have to read more on this to provide a better analysis of the differences. Thanks for the reading tips, I might check that out!

To explain my philosophy from another angle, it's to me really about being logical. Rather than believing in something abstract, I believe in myself and my own experiences and emotions, as these are much more obvious and closer to me. If I ever experience or find proof of true spirituality, then I might start believing in that. Until then I simply try to handle and act on my instincts and emotions the best I can to feel as good as possible, because so far this is the most clear "instruction" I have recieved.

The only reason I would go against myself and my feelings is if I started to believe that life is bad. However, judging on how the many individual life forms act on earth, and as it _seems_ like nature itself wants life wherever possible, I believe that life might almost be a kind of fundamental force, or a law of nature. If life actually is a goal of the universe, then it's natural that we don't work against it, but encourage it. In other words, I say that life is good. This is how my logic works, and though I cannot prove it, it seems like the most logical conclusion to me at the moment (until the discovery of how life first appeared tells me otherwise ;)).

What I have a hard time accepting regarding most existing philosophies is that they often exclude each other, trying to be opposites instead of seeing the whole picture. Based on andyville's summary of the different views on life above I actually believe that all make sense to some degree. I agree that sexuality and general survival is one of our strongest instincts (Darwin), but I also believe in curiosity and the need to develop (philosophy of science), maybe as a natural outcome of the need to survive. I agree that we must value our own lives and that our only guide is our own happiness (similar to objectivism?), but I also believe that a big part of this happiness comes from social and inner-harmony, which means taking care of the life around us as much as taking care of ourselves (somewhat like Dharma).
Hannes
andyville
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri 19 May 2006 14:06
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by andyville »

wintran wrote:To explain my philosophy from another angle, it's to me really about being logical
Well, this is one of the most fundamental aspects of objectivism - to center one's philosophy and one's values on reason alone.

The biggest enemy of Ayn Rand and the objectivist movement, is mysticism. I too have a big problem with mysticism; accepting things because of dogma, faith or pressure from authorities alone, instead of reason, experience and so on. However, I would not be willing to classify the teachings of The Buddha as mystical; on the contrary, Buddha was a great scientist of the mind, who knew of concepts such as evolution, the subconscious and the connection between mind and body, way ahead of his time. Even more importantly, Buddha encouraged his followers to be highly skeptical of all kinds of authority (including himself, ironically) and only believe in things based on their own reasoning or their own experience. That is why I find the teachings of The Buddha interesting.
Chin-Chin
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu 20 Apr 2006 20:51
Location: France

Post by Chin-Chin »

There's no inherent meaning in life (I don't mean that in a postive or negative sense). But somehow there's a wired mechanism that pulls us to ask this question. It seems to me that life wants to live, and that's probably the strongest impetus for continuing existence; some people call it the life force.
andyville
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri 19 May 2006 14:06
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by andyville »

I have been discussing the concept of evolution in a Vipassana forum recently, and found my last post to be quite relevant to this discussion as well. Feel free to read people.


= = = = = =

Ted:

1. Evolution is a concept that I have spent a lot of time thinking and reading about. A couple of years ago I was very interested in evolutionary psychology - the study of which human behaviors are successful as far as reproduction is concerned - and read a lot of books by Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin and others. The more I came to understand the topic, however, I became convinced that the traditional mechanisms underlying evolution - natural selection, survival of the fittest and so on - are becoming outdated. It is my conviction that we are standing on the verge of a new phase of evolution; with the developing techniques of biological engineering, neuroscience, nanotechnology and so on, we will soon be able to either design ourselves, or create new beings with certain qualities. Actually we are already beginning to see very primitive signs of these trends, what with neuroimplants, more and more sophisticated medications and new technologies changing the general living conditions for us here on Earth. In other words, I think that in the future we will set the rules for evolution more and more - the truly relevant evolution will take place in the minds of humans by means of new ideas. Just think about what the breakthrough of the internet ten years ago has meant to life on Earth; 10 years is an extremely short time when looking at traditional, biological evolution, yet in the world of evolution based on ideas, 10 years is a very long time in which great progress can be achieved. And this trend is accelerating. According to Moore's law, for instance, computation power of computers - in other words, the highest possible level of artificial intelligence - doubles every year. According to some computational cognitive scientists, computers should reach the complexity level of the human brain in seventeen years, based on Moore's law. Seventeen years, friends!


2. As you know, I am not an experienced Vipassana meditator, and therefore I lack fundamental experience of the concept of dhamma - the only knowledge I have is theoretical. What I can say, is that the concept of evolution was definitely part of the reason why I started to open up my eyes to Vipassana meditation. To me, evolution is all about reaching higher states of complexity, wisdom, knowledge, scientifical understanding and so on. If dhamma is a way to better understand the truth within - the connection between mind and body - then that is certainly something I would be intersted in learning about. I believe these ideas would be fundamental to my evolution as a human being, and I feel an obligation towards myself and to the rest of humanity to evolve myself as far as possible during the short time I will spend on this planet.

Regarding Vipassana and mysticism: I guess we have similar views on these subjects, Ted. I think the most important insight that I have reached during this conversation between you, me and Naalaka is that experience is extremely important in developing insight. Actually, experience is the very phenomenon that makes it possible for individuals to gain first hand understanding. If you do not have experience of truth, you will have to read scriptures, listen to others and accept their truths, and so on. To my understanding, this was something that The Buddha did not approve of. Instead, he encouraged his followers to think for themselves, and gain insight through reasoning and first hand experience. In other words, The Buddha was a true anti mysticist - a true scientist - which is something I deeply respect.

Please post your own thoughts on the questions I just answered, Ted. And if anyone else would like to comment, feel free to join the conversation!

Thank you so much for having this discussion with me, Ted and Naalaka. I hope that you can see that by increasing my understanding of dhamma step by step, my great initial doubt has stepped back somewhat. I will remain critical, no matter whether I am dealing with Vipassana, newspapers or political speeches, but my interest in giving dhamma a serious chance is growing stronger and stronger by every clarifying word I read and write in this forum. It continues to make more and more sense.
Wintran
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post by Wintran »

andyville wrote:Well, this is one of the most fundamental aspects of objectivism - to center one's philosophy and one's values on reason alone.
Hmm, then I probably am a kind of objectivist, though I find the title a bit misleading (read in Wikipedia that Rand didn't like it either, though ;)).
andyville wrote:The biggest enemy of Ayn Rand and the objectivist movement, is mysticism.
Yeah, there probably isn't room for mysticism unless I actually experience it myself. However, for me that doesn't mean that I don't accept people who believe they have or will have mystical experiences (that is, I don't know what an objectivist's standpoint would be - do they despise all mystical beliefs?).
andyville wrote:However, I would not be willing to classify the teachings of The Buddha as mystical; on the contrary, Buddha was a great scientist of the mind, who knew of concepts such as evolution, the subconscious and the connection between mind and body, way ahead of his time. Even more importantly, Buddha encouraged his followers to be highly skeptical of all kinds of authority (including himself, ironically) and only believe in things based on their own reasoning or their own experience. That is why I find the teachings of The Buddha interesting.
Yes, I totally agree with you. Does Rand classify the teachings of Buddha as mystical?
Chin-Chin wrote:It seems to me that life wants to live, and that's probably the strongest impetus for continuing existence; some people call it the life force.
Oh yes, that's exactly my view as well. :)
Hannes
andyville
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri 19 May 2006 14:06
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by andyville »

Wintran:

I have not read any articles where Rand addresses Buddhism. I just like to compare different philosophies I find interesting. Feel free to read my post from the Vipassana forum above, in which I further discuss my view on the teachings of The Buddha.
Post Reply