Philosophy Now Forum

reasonemotion wrote:does anything exist.....

Will the mystery of existence ever be solved? We dont know how and we cant begin looking for an answer on that basis. Although there are some who optimistically do believe a solution can be found.

There is no mystery.
The only mystery is why people like you think that there might be some big answer out there.
42 is as good as it gets.

reasonemotion wrote:Teddy is having a tantrum.......

I've put him to bed and I've removed all his revolutionary literature until he promises to behave.

As to your original question on the purpose of life (which isn't strictly what you asked anyway but for those unsatisfied with 42): I'd suggest everyone just decides what, if any, purpose they want to give it and then go for it rather than trying to work out if there's some great plan for everyone.

John wrote:

reasonemotion wrote:Teddy is having a tantrum.......

I've put him to bed and I've removed all his revolutionary literature until he promises to behave.

As to your original question on the purpose of life (which isn't strictly what you asked but anyway, for those unsatisfied with 42): I'd suggest everyone just decides what, if any, purpose they want to give it and then go for it rather than trying to work out if there's some great plan for everyone.

Indeed - as long as they don't want to include me in their hare-brained schemes they can think what they like.

chaz wyman wrote:...
42 is as good as it gets.

Especially if you think you've found the question!

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:...
42 is as good as it gets.

Especially if you think you've found the question!

That's easy; " what do you get if you multiply nine by seven?"
If philosophers could figure out why this answer makes 42, then we would have it sorted!

Since the beginning we have always been 4 2...(our parents)

I think the need for a purpose is a by-product of self-awareness. Once you figured out, "I think, therefore I am", a logical follow-up is "Why?".

The purpose of anything is to satisfy a need. Without need, there is no purpose. And to assume anything or everything exists because it is needed (a very human emotion) is a bit egocentric.

Hanuman wrote:I think the need for a purpose is a by-product of self-awareness. Once you figured out, "I think, therefore I am", a logical follow-up is "Why?".

The purpose of anything is to satisfy a need. Without need, there is no purpose. And to assume anything or everything exists because it is needed (a very human emotion) is a bit egocentric.

All purpose aside...a more intelligent follow-up is "How?"

attofishpi wrote:Since the beginning we have always been 4 2...(our parents)

TWAT!

as far as we can empirically prove, there isn't some kind of omnipotent sentient being or energy or what have you, controlling or directing anything in the universe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a purpose a concept? and if it is a concept don't you need a mind or some kind of sentience to have one? table salt doesn't inherently have a purpose, we give it "purpose" when we use it with some kind of goal in mind. A goal is something we apply to other things, its a concept, and that goal can change depending on what the person is going to use it for. some might use said table salt to flavor their food, some might use it to make somebody else's food taste horrible, some might use it for art, but at the end of the day its all table salt. Purpose is a sentient concept, so unless there is some kind of mind or spirit or energy thing that does control or direct the universe, there can be no purpose to anything without a mind to make it so. it also means the universe has whatever purpose you can give it.

so my answer to WHY is TO FEEL. mind you I assumed by the WHY you were looking for a reason, if that's not the case, just ignore everything I've written

chaz wyman wrote:That's easy; " what do you get if you multiply nine by seven?"
If philosophers could figure out why this answer makes 42, then we would have it sorted!

Not the question I found, mine is in an article by Kenneth W. Ford which apparently comes from his book "The World of Elementary Particles" but can also be found in the book; The World treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics.

But the mathematicians had already explained this one so no philosophers necessary. As its shorthand for, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1.

ungrateful wretch wrote:as far as we can empirically prove, there isn't some kind of omnipotent sentient being or energy or what have you, controlling or directing anything in the universe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a purpose a concept? and if it is a concept don't you need a mind or some kind of sentience to have one? table salt doesn't inherently have a purpose, we give it "purpose" when we use it with some kind of goal in mind. A goal is something we apply to other things, its a concept, and that goal can change depending on what the person is going to use it for. some might use said table salt to flavor their food, some might use it to make somebody else's food taste horrible, some might use it for art, but at the end of the day its all table salt. Purpose is a sentient concept, so unless there is some kind of mind or spirit or energy thing that does control or direct the universe, there can be no purpose to anything without a mind to make it so. it also means the universe has whatever purpose you can give it.

so my answer to WHY is TO FEEL. mind you I assumed by the WHY you were looking for a reason, if that's not the case, just ignore everything I've written

The problem for me is when a person says the purpose of an elephant's trunk is x by implying that nature has chosen, or the elephants' trunk has been selected for. The only answer for the elephants trunk or ears is the same for humans' choice of purpose when they use some part of themselves. What it does is the same as the purpose, but it is just false speculation to imply that nature has selected for. Elephants use their trunks for a long list of activities, none of which is the reason that they have them. Natural Selection does not act on trunks, or traits, or behaviours, it acts by selecting individuals that have successful progeny; each of whom might have a range of traits, and behaviours which are neutral or even negative towards their survival, but do not impede that reproductive success.

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:That's easy; " what do you get if you multiply nine by seven?"
If philosophers could figure out why this answer makes 42, then we would have it sorted!

Not the question I found, mine is in an article by Kenneth W. Ford which apparently comes from his book "The World of Elementary Particles" but can also be found in the book; The World treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics.

But the mathematicians had already explained this one so no philosophers necessary. As its shorthand for, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1.

So what's the question?

chaz wyman wrote:So what's the question?

That's right.

chaz wyman wrote:So what's the question?

Not going to say

Mainly because I'd like others to see if I might be right and that this may have been where Douglas Adams found his idea. Coz I could be wrong.

Its in Fords article in the "The World treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics".