What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[Walker]

That's what ineffable means.

Wrong.

Actually, you're right. It doesn't quite mean that. It means "inexpressible." But of course, if it is inexpressible, in what sense is it known? Is it really possible to be unable to express something that I know?

Be that as it may, if we accept that "ineffable" just means "inexpressible," why does Nick insist on expressing the inexpressible?

Inexpressible joy or unspeakable sadness fits the ineffable ticket.

*

I’m wondering what Einstein came up with “intelligent design.”

The term “intelligent design” is a consciously created redundancy.

- By definition, all design is intelligent, especially in great works of art.
- Even the simple designs of motionless statues for the masses to worship are created by intelligence.
- The purposeful redundancy of the term intelligent design opens the dualistic, conceptual door for the term, unintelligent design.
- The false dichotomies of dualism don’t even have to be clever and sneaky to be accepted as a rote but baseless concept.

[surreptitious57]

If the entire history of the earth (which is much younger than the universe) were compressed into a calendar year modern humans make the first appearance at about a tenth of a second to midnight on the last day of the year Dec 31. That is how irrelevant we are. If you take into account the history of the universe as a whole our first appearance on the timeline of the universe as a whole is almost incalculable probably a billionth of a second to midnight on the last day of the year

Does this mean that before Man appeared on earth that the universe had no purpose? It just appeared for no reason
and will eventually perish for no reason. Only mans subjective concepts provide purpose. That is tough to swallow

That is because you think human beings deserve immortality rather than a finite existence but the laws of physics do not operate like that. You cannot conveniently ignore the Second Law Of Thermodynamics just because you happen not to like it. We only exist because of random events We could so easily not exist. So we should be grateful that we do. We are not in any position to be complaining about our existence. None at all

[Immanuel Can]

Anyone who imagines they have objective purpose in the World/Universe/God's creation is suffering a delusion, yes, I believe so.

I think we agree. "Imagining" an objective purpose would be to delude oneself.

I imagine I may well be happier if I did feel a sense of purpose, albeit a self imposed one, but I don't see where courage comes into it.

Well, Camus thought that it took a certain amount of fortitude to admit to oneself that there was no ultimate meaning or ultimate purpose to life. (Mind you, I don't know why he then thought "courage" was a good thing. Because in such a world, there are no objective values either. He must have been speaking emotionally, I suppose. He can't have been speaking objectively.)

And if there is no Creator, then Camus is right. Inventing a "purpose" or "meaning," is inauthentic, dishonest, and self-deluding,

I don't see what's dishonest about it, or at least it doesn't have to be dishonest. One could do voluntary work for a charity because it gives one a personal sense of purpose, in the full knowledge that it is entirely a subjective matter for oneself, what would be dishonest about that?

It would depend on how the charitable person thought about it. If you were working for the charity because that was your preference, Camus would have no problem with that. But if you started telling yourself something like, "Helping the poor is an objectively morally good thing, and my life is meaningful because human beings have intrinsic value, and I'm serving them," then Camus would call cheat and claim it's "intellectual suicide" to take refuge in such delusions.

We are all, he said, like the mythical Sisyphus, just rolling rocks up hills.

If I were feeling confrontational I may well point out that inventing a Creator is rather dishonest, but I'm not, so I won't.

And yet, I would agree.

in that case, and will only form an illusionary barrier between the "condemned to be free" (Sartre) agent and the true reality he or she inhabits, limiting his or her ability to choose freely. It would be the opiate of the Atheist.

I'm afraid your intellectual superiority has got the better of me here, IC, I can't respond to this because I have no idea what it means. All I can say about it is that it is similar to the Marx quote about religion being the opium of the masses, or something like that.

Oh, sorry...not trying to be like that. Camus thought that we all had to be hard-nosed about reality, and not pretend that it had any meaning or purpose given in advance. He also thought we had to be quite honest about death ending all, if that's what we thought was true. The problem with not facing the facts, he thought, was that it would make us unrealistic about what was really going on in our lives, and thus make us blind to the real options we might have. It was, he thought, a kind of running away from our freedom, a hiding from our responsibility to make our own lives according to our own choices, rather than according to some given "meaning" or ultimate "purpose."

In a sense, then, he was saying that to imagine things like objective meaning and purpose was really a kind of drug, an opiate -- but in this case, for those who believe there's no God, but can't face the coldness and terror of life without objective meaning and purpose.

Given your willingness to face facts as Camus perceived them to be, he'd have probably slapped you on the back and said, "Good lad"; but he'd have had nothing but contempt for any Atheist who said that in spite of their accidental origins, the happenstances of life and the impending extinction at death, they still could have objective meaning and purpose. He would regard that as a stupefying delusion.

[Nick_A]

If the entire history of the earth (which is much younger than the universe) were compressed into a calendar year modern humans make the first appearance at about a tenth of a second to midnight on the last day of the year Dec 31. That is how irrelevant we are. If you take into account the history of the universe as a whole our first appearance on the timeline of the universe as a whole is almost incalculable probably a billionth of a second to midnight on the last day of the year

Does this mean that before Man appeared on earth that the universe had no purpose? It just appeared for no reason
and will eventually perish for no reason. Only mans subjective concepts provide purpose. That is tough to swallow

That is because you think human beings deserve immortality rather than a finite existence but the laws of physics do not operate like that. You cannot conveniently ignore the Second Law Of Thermodynamics just because you happen not to like it. We only exist because of random events We could so easily not exist. So we should be grateful that we do. We are not in any position to be complaining about our existence. None at all

No. It is logical that the man animal originating on the earth follows the cycle of dust to dust. I also believe that man is dual natured. We also have the seed of a soul and conscious parts capable of receiving from above and giving to below. The life of the seed of the soul depends depends on its origin and if it can mature or be saved as good seed within the body of the Christ.

You’ve mentioned the second law of thermodynamics but how about Newton’s first law of motion- sometimes referred to as the law of inertia. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

What is this unbalanced force which puts matter at rest into motion?

[davidm]

Given your willingness to face facts as Camus perceived them to be, he'd have probably slapped you on the back and said, "Good lad"; but he'd have had nothing but contempt for any Atheist who said that in spite of their accidental origins, the happenstances of life and the impending extinction at death, they still could have objective meaning and purpose. He would regard that as a stupefying delusion.

Right. And I -- and I imagine most atheists -- don't imagine that humans have "objective meaning and purpose." This does not mean we can't have subjective meaning and purpose, or deny meaning and purpose altogether. So what's the problem?

[davidm]

What is this unbalanced force which puts matter at rest into motion?

Are we on to Aristotle's Prime Mover now?

[Nick_A]

What is this unbalanced force which puts matter at rest into motion?

Are we on to Aristotle's Prime Mover now?

Since I believe the universe is the body of God and the ineffable God is beyond the limitations of time and space it would seem that movement within the body always was. The beginning and end of a universal cycle as we recognize it is a basic unit of time called a kapla in Buddhism. In Hinduism, repeating cycles pf the birth and death of a universe are considered to be the Breath of Brahma. If you want to consider the breath of Brahma as an expression of a prime mover it would seem to make sense.

[davidm]

What is this unbalanced force which puts matter at rest into motion?

Are we on to Aristotle's Prime Mover now?

Since I believe the universe is the body of God and the ineffable God is beyond the limitations of time and space it would seem that movement within the body always was. The beginning and end of a universal cycle as we recognize it is a basic unit of time called a kapla in Buddhism. In Hinduism, repeating cycles pf the birth and death of a universe are considered to be the Breath of Brahma. If you want to consider the breath of Brahma as an expression of a prime mover it would seem to make sense.

Evidence that any of this is true?

[surreptitious57]

It is logical that the man animal originating on the earth follows the cycle of dust to dust. I also believe that man is dual natured. We also have
the seed of a soul and conscious parts capable of receiving from above and giving to below. The life of the seed of the soul depends depends on
its origin and if it can mature or be saved as good seed within the body of the Christ Jesus

You ve mentioned the second law of thermodynamics but how about Newtons first law of motion- sometimes referred to as the law of inertia
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force

What is this unbalanced force which puts matter at rest into motion

Do you have any evidence that the soul exists or do you only believe it exists

Human beings have walked the Earth for at least 100 000 years but Jesus [ assuming that he existed ] only lived 2 000 years ago. So why did
God therefore not send him to save the human race at the very beginning of its existence. And also what happened to the souls of all those
who died before Jesus was born. Do they even have souls

All objects of mass have energy. Mass is concentrated energy. Static objects have potential energy and moving ones have kinetic
energy. And when an object at rest is in motion all that is happening is a transference from one type of energy into another type

[davidm]

My only quibble with the above: the evidence shows that modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago, not 100,000 years. I agree it's kinda strange that Jesus did not appear until 2,000 years ago to redeem our "sins."

No object is at rest in an absolute sense, only in a relative sense.

[Immanuel Can]

Right. And I -- and I imagine most atheists -- don't imagine that humans have "objective meaning and purpose." This does not mean we can't have subjective meaning and purpose, or deny meaning and purpose altogether. So what's the problem?

The problem is only that "subjective purpose" or "subjective meaning" must be synonyms for "delusion." For if they actually corresponded to anything intrinsically true or valuable in reality itself, they would no longer be merely subjective, but would be morally obligatory for the person in question, and hence objective. But unless I miss my guess, the whole attraction to insisting on "subjective purpose" or "subjective meaning," is to have things one's own way, and NOT to be obligated to any objective reality.

In other words, "subjective purpose" is just a synonym for every child's favourite phrase: "I want..." But as children eventually learn, reality does not particularly care what one wants. Reality offers only what it offers, and does not offer what it does not. It does not particularly care about one's "subjective" purpose. And I suspect other people care very little for one's "subjective purpose" too, since being merely "subjective," it entails no obligation on their part either.

Finally, one is not even obligated to oneself to obtain one's "subjective purpose," since being subjective, it is both unanchored in reality itself, and infinitely variable with one's whims and moods. How can we be morally obligated to be "authentic" to our mere whims?

In short, it's not particular honourable to have such a thing, and no one, not even the self, is obligated to it. Not a very high commendation for a value, but there it is. And that's the problem.

[davidm]

But unless I miss my guess ...

You miss your guess.

But as children eventually learn, reality does not particularly care what one wants. Reality offers only what it offers, and does not offer what it does not. .

Amazing how you do not spot the irony of this statement.

[surreptitious57]

The problem is only that subjective purpose or subjective meaning must be synonyms for delusion. For if they actually corresponded
to anything intrinsically true or valuable in reality itself they would no longer be merely subjective but would be morally obligatory
for the person in question and hence objective

There are two problems with this

Firstly just because something is intrinsically true or valuable does not mean human beings are compelled to do it as
that would be a denial of free will. Human beings should do good because they want to and not because they have to

Secondly there are many things that are intrinsically true or valuable not just one as you seem to imply. So again human
beings can exercise their free will and decide which intrinsically true or valuable thing [ or things ] it is they want to do

[Nick_A]

Right. And I -- and I imagine most atheists -- don't imagine that humans have "objective meaning and purpose." This does not mean we can't have subjective meaning and purpose, or deny meaning and purpose altogether. So what's the problem?

The problem is only that "subjective purpose" or "subjective meaning" must be synonyms for "delusion." For if they actually corresponded to anything intrinsically true or valuable in reality itself, they would no longer be merely subjective, but would be morally obligatory for the person in question, and hence objective. But unless I miss my guess, the whole attraction to insisting on "subjective purpose" or "subjective meaning," is to have things one's own way, and NOT to be obligated to any objective reality.

In other words, "subjective purpose" is just a synonym for every child's favourite phrase: "I want..." But as children eventually learn, reality does not particularly care what one wants. Reality offers only what it offers, and does not offer what it does not. It does not particularly care about one's "subjective" purpose. And I suspect other people care very little for one's "subjective purpose" too, since being merely "subjective," it entails no obligation on their part either.

Finally, one is not even obligated to oneself to obtain one's "subjective purpose," since being subjective, it is both unanchored in reality itself, and infinitely variable with one's whims and moods. How can we be morally obligated to be "authentic" to our mere whims?

In short, it's not particular honourable to have such a thing, and no one, not even the self, is obligated to it. Not a very high commendation for a value, but there it is. And that's the problem.

IC, let me ask you if you believe in objective conscience rather than indoctrinated conscience? As I understand it, objective conscience is a human attribute and the emotional equivalent of consciousness. It is apriori knowledge; the knowledge of value. It degenerates within society producing subjective morality. As a result objective conscience has become virtually atrophied but people can open to it. But who wants to when it is more satisfying to create ones own reality and call it the limits of purpose.

[Immanuel Can]

But unless I miss my guess ...

You miss your guess.

But as children eventually learn, reality does not particularly care what one wants. Reality offers only what it offers, and does not offer what it does not. .

Amazing how you do not spot the irony of this statement.

Interestingly, you have nothing of substance to offer by way of refutation. That I do "spot."