Debates
27 Sep 13
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by normbenignI copy over this post from another thread. Still relevant, I think:
That is all true, but life is temporal, and indeterminately continuous. Species come and go, but life seems in our realm to go on. Reproduction is the means of it continuing. No species stops reproducing and doesn't go extinct.
Our individual lives are but a moment, but life itself for most species is quite long.
Maybe you should ask the following catalogue of people, from Jane Austen to Emile Zola, if their lives were "pointless" because they were childless? Take it up with Beethoven, William Blake, Maria Callas, Copernicus, Da Vinci, Descartes, Queen Elizabeth I, Handel, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Samuel Johnson, John Maynard Keynes, Iris Murdoch, Isaac Newton, Florence Nightingale, Rosa Parks, Samuel Pepys, William Rontgen, John Ruskin, Sartre, Albert Schweitzer, George Bernard Shaw, George Washington, Edith Wharton, and Orville and Wilbur Wright.
28 Sep 13
1 edit
As the good book says, you can decide to live your life for anything or anyone, including yourself. However, those that sow into the flesh reap death and those that sow into the spirit reap life.
Put another way, your body is dying, so only focusing on its never ending wants and desires will ultimately bring only death. However, those that sow into others, whether it be those you love or even the God that you love, will pass the torch of life and meaningful change that will effect eternity.
Of course, I'm partial to the movie "City Slickers". A cowboy named "Curly" once said that the meaning of life boiled down to one thing. Puzzled everyone asked what it was. He just smiled and said, "Well, that is for you to decide."
Choose wisely my friends! 😵
Edit: Robbie, I've now officially transcended this thread, spiritually speaking, and demand an apology! ðŸ˜
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by normbenignSo...are you a climate change denier?
As little as two centuries ago, it was inconceivable that the earth could support its present population. A growing population has always been a sign of a successful culture.
Sure, there are limits, but I don't think we are even close to physical limitations on population. I think that future generations will determine viability of continued growth, ...[text shortened]... warning comes, as well as to many well meaning types wanting to help protect us from ourselves.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by TeinosukeI never said that lives that didn't reproduce were meaningless. Our primary instincts are survival and procreation. Lots of other things we use life to do, but none of them sustain life to the next generation.
I copy over this post from another thread. Still relevant, I think:
Maybe you should ask the following catalogue of people, from Jane Austen to Emile Zola, if their lives were "pointless" because they were childless? Take it up with Beethoven, William Blake, Maria Callas, Copernicus, Da Vinci, Descartes, Queen Elizabeth I, Handel, Oliver Wendell Holmes, ...[text shortened]... chweitzer, George Bernard Shaw, George Washington, Edith Wharton, and Orville and Wilbur Wright.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, in the short run your life may have meaning. So does mine. But that is only because we feel that what we do is important in some way. We assign meaning to our actions. But that meaning will become diluted more and more as time goes by. There is no "higher" meaning to life except that which we give to it.
So if you made a diamond and sent if off into space and it lasted forever, would your life have more meaning? Why must permanence have anything whatsoever to do with meaning? Why must your impact on the earth be lasting for you to have meaning?
You start by agreeing with rwingett then more or less backtrack completely.
I say that 'meaning' is only mea ...[text shortened]... mately my life has meaning to me. Whether it makes sense to say that in my absence is debatable.
I felt the OP was looking for some sort of "universal" meaning to life, a goal that must be obtained by "life" and living beings. There is none.
29 Sep 13
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignYet since every individual is mortal and even the lifespan of our species, planet and solar system is finite, we must presumably seek meaning in something that can be achieved on an individual basis, whether that be the hope of personal immortality through religion, one's professional or artistic achievements, the bonds one creates with one's friends, family, colleagues, students (not necessarily children or those who may outlive us). While procreation is an instinct, to find meaning in procreation is, in my opinion, just distraction from the question of what life may mean to each individual human being.
I never said that lives that didn't reproduce were meaningless. Our primary instincts are survival and procreation. Lots of other things we use life to do, but none of them sustain life to the next generation.
29 Sep 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatWhy should meaning I assign become diluted with time? If I assign a given meaning to a given action that meaning remains until I choose otherwise. If I die, then the meaning no longer exists as it was only ever meaning to me, but that seems like a trivial observation.
We assign meaning to our actions. But that meaning will become diluted more and more as time goes by.
You seem to both recognise that meaning requires an 'assignor' whilst still treating it as part of some more universal meaning hence your claims of dilution with time and references to permanence.
30 Sep 13
Originally posted by TeinosukeI think that your notion is self adulation. People stroke themselves by concocting meaningful lives, which is really mental masturbation.
Yet since every individual is mortal and even the lifespan of our species, planet and solar system is finite, we must presumably seek meaning in something that can be achieved on an individual basis, whether that be the hope of personal immortality through religion, one's professional or artistic achievements, the bonds one creates with one's friend ...[text shortened]... pinion, just distraction from the question of what life may mean to each individual human being.
Whatever an individual chooses is just fine, and simple living and breeding may be more important, than contemplating one's navel. There are obviously tremendously different ways of using life, and each gains pleasure for the individual engaged in that pursuit.
If we compared the value to mankind of just two things, procreation and music, only the former is required for continued survival. That comparison can be made for each of many higher activities, with the same result.