One’s Perspective on Life

[sub5male]

NT

 

[okidoke]

.......the existance of the phenomenal world can only be justified by the existance of will........

Isn't it justified by our senses rather than our will?

That will is the immanent principle of reality, the thing from which all appearances stem and the logical nexus that makes the reality of experience possible. We do not see things as they are, and for that reason the whole, vast extent of our experience as living beings, which is subjective, has to be materialized in a way that is understandable to us, therefore in a aprioristic way. This thing, the complete sum of principles according to which reality is created, the very act of creation of reality (as there's no practical distinction between the two), is the result of will. In other words, reality is created in our minds the way it is not by chance, but rather as an act of will, because to build a world of shadows, of appearances, to construct a reality where there's none, or where there's only things-in-themselves, is an act of will. There's no way to explain the lapse that exists between the moment there's nothing and the moment when the world is subjectively created other than to say it's the manifestation of a transcendental principle, capable of materializing reality out of nothing or rather out of things-in-themselves which are in themselves unknowable.

Therefore, life and the world do have a meaning, and purpose. The meaning of both life and the world is to satisfy the dictates of will, the same will that creates the world and makes the experience of life possible in the first place.

This is all very confusing and doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying one's will is creating the world? Can you dumb it down for those of us that don't use words like "aprioristic" and "immament"?

The reality of physical laws for which there has never been even a single bit of emperical evidence for anything "supernatural" let alone an all powerful deity. As also a life long athiest myself too, while I agree that many things are subjective the rules of our physical reality are not among them.

Our knowledge is limited though. We are learning more things all the time, even hypothesizing about other dimensions. It's a Faith thing for believers and therefore their reality.

Only today I read about a recent example of the dangers of religious zealots where a public school district board in OK approved the first taxpayer funded religious school in US (I believe it is catholic) which is in direct conflict with the separation of church & state. It will very likely never be allowed to happen but it does highlight the goal of a group of evangelical christians to move the US to a theocracy. The Supreme Court is another example where the judges seem to be more interested in pushing their own personal beliefs rather than ruling based on the laws they are sworn to uphold.

I don't disagree that religion often has controversial issues. Wherever there are extremes there are porblems.

.......I am not sure what you mean by "submissive men" though as being submissive or dominant is often not based on a mans physical size or appearance. I have also never heard of a movement to pass laws requiring a non-heterosexual lifestyle. If/when this does happen then it will become as concerning as the religious right is currently.

Nevermind. You misunderstood my meaning. I'm not going to pursue that line any further.

As far as finding meaning in life, for some people the meaning which they seek may be unavailable to them due to factors which they have no control over so their lives are essentially meaningless. Even having been on both side of the equation I am uncertain which is worse, not having any true meaning or knowing what meaning you need but being unable to obtain it.

Again, I'm not suggesting we try to "find meaning" in life, I'm suggesting we just do meaningful things. I opine that we're born and have a right to make the most of our lives the best we can, in a way that gives us some joy and contentment, with the minimum suffering as possible.

 

[user 190541]

Isn't it justified by our senses rather than our will?

The senses themselves, at least the way I understand them, are just a set of perceptive apparatuses that send information that needs to be processed by the brain. Only when this information is processed and all the senses are fused through the creation of a world of subjective perception (like I said, through aprioristic categories) is that reality comes to be, so the senses themselves cannot justify reality, as there isn't any reality yet to be justified.

This is all very confusing and doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying one's will is creating the world? Can you dumb it down for those of us that don't use words like "aprioristic" and "immament"?

Not one's will in the usual sense. To simplify it, if you agree that the world that we know is not the world as it is, then you have to ask why, or through what the world presents itself to us not as it is, but rather as we see it. We understand the world through categories that are innate, inherent to the way or mind works. Things like space and time, for instance. All objects that can be seen are in space, and every type of causality has to occur in a given amount of time, by sucession. These categories, called aprioristic, are responsible for the way we understand the world, and they're not properties of the objects we see in themselves, but rather are qualities that we attribute to the phenomena we experience. This also means that time and space do not objectively exist.

So the whole world exists only as a subjective phenomenom, or rather as a set of subjective phenomena. Crudely speaking, and taking some poetic liberty, the world exists only because you want it to exist. Not you in the usual sense of the word, but what you could call your life force, or something like that. This is the dumbed down version of what I just said.

 

[okidoke]

.......This is the dumbed down version of what I just said.

Thanks for coming down to my level. I'm sure the majority of humanity now better understand what you're trying to say. Whether that would satiate those in under-developed countries, I don't know. I assume that they have a more simpler view of life's meaning. On my travels I have met with very poor people who seemed happy and contented with their lot and offered me more than those in better situations, so I only guess they're seeing more meaning in their lives.

 

[user 190541]

Thanks for coming down to my level. I'm sure the majority of humanity now better understand what you're trying to say. Whether that would satiate those in under-developed countries, I don't know. I assume that they have a more simpler view of life's meaning. On my travels I have met with very poor people who seemed happy and contented with their lot and offered me more than those in better situations, so I only guess they're seeing more meaning in their lives.

Simple is good. I admire people who are contented with what they have.

 

[Kar]

Interesting thought. I would argue that people didn't live in caves 24/7 though. They went out and foraged and hunted etc and would've gotten to know their surroundings pretty well, learning where was and wasn't safe, and it was only (I believe) when they learned to sew crops that they stayed in one area for long periods of time and began building their own domiciles and communities.

There are many people who would argue that we aren't benefiting from all the sacrifices made by those that fought, and that those who did sacrifice would be turning in their graves now. I don't know if you can "owe" someone who hasn't given anything to you, like even your children, you don't owe them a good life, you just try to give them a good life, a better life than what you had, or at least a chance at a successful happy life, but that's not "owing" them in my opinion. We could rephrase your question to something like, "What selfless deed can we do so our descendants have a better world?" I guess, and maybe you should start a thread asking such a question Kar

Interesting counter point. Yes, of course they didn't stay in caves all day long but had to forage and hunt. The idea of the cave dwellers is more of a metaphor. Another example of this metaphor, the first colonies of the US all died out. Imagine leaving the safety of the known community these people had for a very unknown land. Maybe half died in transit. Then things got hard. Diseases, unknown natives, no support of neighbors...there weren't any and in a relatively short amount of time, they all died out. Then another group of colonists made the attempt and the same thing happened. It happened over and over. But eventually, the new colonists found a way to survive despite the adversity. This is the same metaphor as leaving the cave.

I don't think there are many people who would say we didn't benefit from the sacrifices from those before us who have some knowledge of history. Similarly, lets use climate change as a modern example. Do we owe it to future generations to try to get this problem that will mostly escape us but cause future generations great problems because we didn't take control of it? That's back to the point of the question, what do we owe the future?

 

[okidoke]

...........................I don't think there are many people who would say we didn't benefit from the sacrifices from those before us who have some knowledge of history.

I agree that we've benefited, I'm just saying there are plenty, with stupid reasoning, who don't.

Similarly, lets use climate change as a modern example. Do we owe it to future generations to try to get this problem that will mostly escape us but cause future generations great problems because we didn't take control of it?.....

I believe I already answered this before with "I don't know if you can "owe" someone who hasn't given anything to you, like even your children, you don't owe them a good life, you just try to give them a good life, a better life than what you had, or at least a chance at a successful happy life, but that's not "owing" them in my opinion." We should definitely think of future generations.

........ That's back to the point of the question, what do we owe the future?

Um, but if we go further back, right back to the OP, the question was "is life meaningless". Maybe a thread about owing the future may be pertinent Kar?

 

[Cherubino]

I simply don't understand how can anyone complain about the meaning of life when there is an infinite amount of love (sex) to make ... what's the matter? never mind ... what's the mind? doesn't matter

 

[sub5male]

I simply don't understand how can anyone complain about the meaning of life when there is an infinite amount of love (sex) to make ... what's the matter? never mind ... what's the mind? doesn't matter

Sex does not in any way equal love-in fact only very rarely are the two connected. Also, many men are unable to experience either of them and it is this complete lack of intimate connection which is a source of great despair and angst in the lives of so many.

 

[Cherubino]

Sex does not in any way equal love-in fact only very rarely are the two connected. Also, many men are unable to experience either of them and it is this complete lack of intimate connection which is a source of great despair and angst in the lives of so many.

you can have paid sex and love for kitties

 

[okidoke]

I simply don't understand how can anyone complain about the meaning of life when there is an infinite amount of love (sex) to make ... what's the matter? never mind ... what's the mind? doesn't matter

Nobody is complaining about it. We’re discussing if life has meaning or not.

Sex does not in any way equal love-in fact only very rarely are the two connected. Also, many men are unable to experience either of them and it is this complete lack of intimate connection which is a source of great despair and angst in the lives of so many.

Let’s not derail the thread please

 

[sub5male]

Nobody is complaining about it. We’re discussing if life has meaning or not.


Let’s not derail the thread please

I actually think that the question of sex and love is quite relevent to the discussion of meaning on which this thread is focused because for some of us the physical act of sex is meaningless without an emotional connection. Paying for sex (if it is legal where you live) may be a solution for some single, lonely men but for others it is worse than being alone & celibate.

Similarly, those who say "just do meaningful things to make your life have meaning" may work for some but is not going to work for others. I participate weekly in meaningful activities and have for many years but the distraction which they provide is very temporary at best and not having anyone to enjoy them with greatly detracts from extracting any deep, lasting meaning from them.

 

[sub5male]

you can have paid sex and love for kitties

The idea of meaningless sex is repulsive to me and paying for it even more so-besides which it is illegal in most of the US. A year ago I adopted a very loving pitbull and she does help take the edge of the loneliness but is not a replacement for an intimate relationship with human female partner.

 

[okidoke]

I actually think that the question of sex and love is quite relevent to the discussion of meaning on which this thread is focused because for some of us the physical act of sex is meaningless without an emotional connection…..

Feel free to start a “is sex meaningless” thread.

Similarly, those who say "just do meaningful things to make your life have meaning"

Please don’t misquote me in future.

 

[user 190541]

Similarly, those who say "just do meaningful things to make your life have meaning" may work for some but is not going to work for others. I participate weekly in meaningful activities and have for many years but the distraction which they provide is very temporary at best and not having anyone to enjoy them with greatly detracts from extracting any deep, lasting meaning from them.

The fact that you cannot experience meaning in what you do (and seemingly knows why you fail to experiece that) is proof that life does indeed have a meaning to you. If it didn't, you wouldn't even know why you can't experience meaning in the first place. That you know why shows not only that there is meaning, but that there is also a clearly defined path to that meaning, even if you cannot follow it. Correcting these faults in your reasoning for life's supposed lack of meaning (a reasoning that leads to nihilism, an unsustainable philosophy rightly dismissed by nearly all philosophers of relevance) is, I believe, the first step to fiding meaning in life.

 

[Sir Joseph]

I must? Why must I? Even if life does have no meaning, you can still make it meaningful. Even if it has no purpose, you can make it purposeful. And even if it’s limited, you can still have hope and something to live for.

They accept certain proofs. That’s what matters to them.

My connection of evolution with a meaningless life is a position made by leading atheists today, though it's also affirmed by Christian apologists. In other words, if the whole world functions only by natural, random chance, chemical processes, it's hard to attribute meaning to that - thus, the basis for atheists arguing against free will or accountability.

Your challenge to that conclusion is a fair one that I've had to think about for awhile, and it no doubt comes down to defining the word "meaningful."

I'll agree with you that meaning can be realized by anyone for any little thing, but who's the judge of whether it's truly meaningful or not? We all see others committing their time or entire lives to things that serve no purpose or make no sense to us, but obviously do to them.

Perhaps one's view on the meaning of life, like morality, is defined by one's world view. In today's secular culture, relativism would have you decide for yourself what your purpose and meaning in life is. And by that standard, the things you do in life would make your life meaningful. For you, that may be good deeds to individuals or contributions that benefit society at large. For others though, it could be evil deeds that serve their own self interest and hurt society. If relativism rules, then one way's as justifiable as the other. This world view would define Hitler as having a very meaningful life, as well as the 911 terrorists.

A Biblical world view is based upon objective standards which can be summarized as: first and foremost to love God, and secondly to love others. Many people accept the second part and live productive lives doing good deeds but reject the first and foremost part of knowing and loving God. For them, they've missed the whole purpose and meaning of life: having a relationship with the one who created them.

Unlike the evolutionary, naturalistic world view, the Bible teaches that we will be held accountable for everything we do or say, suggesting that each day holds meaning for us. But when we speak of the meaning of life, most people are referring to an ultimate origin, purpose, and destiny of life, not the numerous daily thoughts or actions. To that point, I'll hold that the details don't matter if you reject God and his plan of eternal salvation.

 

[okidoke]

My connection of evolution with a meaningless life is a position made by leading atheists today, though it's also affirmed by Christian apologists. In other words, if the whole world functions only by natural, random chance, chemical processes, it's hard to attribute meaning to that - thus, the basis for atheists arguing against free will or accountability.

Your challenge to that conclusion is a fair one that I've had to think about for awhile, and it no doubt comes down to defining the word "meaningful."

I'll agree with you that meaning can be realized by anyone for any little thing, but who's the judge of whether it's truly meaningful or not? We all see others committing their time or entire lives to things that serve no purpose or make no sense to us, but obviously do to them.

Perhaps one's view on the meaning of life, like morality, is defined by one's world view. In today's secular culture, relativism would have you decide for yourself what your purpose and meaning in life is. And by that standard, the things you do in life would make your life meaningful. For you, that may be good deeds to individuals or contributions that benefit society at large. For others though, it could be evil deeds that serve their own self interest and hurt society. If relativism rules, then one way's as justifiable as the other. This world view would define Hitler as having a very meaningful life, as well as the 911 terrorists.

A Biblical world view is based upon objective standards which can be summarized as: first and foremost to love God, and secondly to love others. Many people accept the second part and live productive lives doing good deeds but reject the first and foremost part of knowing and loving God. For them, they've missed the whole purpose and meaning of life: having a relationship with the one who created them.

Unlike the evolutionary, naturalistic world view, the Bible teaches that we will be held accountable for everything we do or say, suggesting that each day holds meaning for us. But when we speak of the meaning of life, most people are referring to an ultimate origin, purpose, and destiny of life, not the numerous daily thoughts or actions. To that point, I'll hold that the details don't matter if you reject God and his plan of eternal salvation.

I agree with most of what you’ve written. As an atheist myself though, I don’t argue against free will or accountability. As for who judges what’s meaningful, that comes down to the individual in my opinion. Thx for your reply.

 

[Unsigned]

The idea of meaningless sex is repulsive to me

Totally understand this.

and paying for it even more so

Again, I get it.

besides which it is illegal in most of the US.

All I can say here is...I couldn't care less. I need physicality with hot young girls and the society in which we live has denied that to me.
So...f-em!
I'll do what I have to do and if Uncle LEO has an issue with that...taze me, bro!

Mind you I am not saying P4P is an acceptable substitute for a true relationship.
But to me (and only IMO), it is better than nothing.
It's kept me going till now.
It motivates me to be a high earning, productive American citizen.
There are worse things.

 

[sub5male]

Totally understand this.


Again, I get it.


All I can say here is...I couldn't care less. I need physicality with hot young girls and the society in which we live has denied that to me.
So...f-em!

Nothing wrong with it at all & you are indeed fortunate to have a good form of relief to be able to cope somewhat. I discovered that I would be considered as being demi-sexual which is doubtless another barrier for me along with being more introverted. Even though I have no interest in participating myself, I am a strong supporter of legalization because what two consenting adults choose do is really no business of the goverment and it would doubtless help men who would otherwise be too frightened of the potential legal repercussions

 

[Unsigned]

I am a strong supporter of legalization because what two consenting adults choose do is really no business of the goverment and it would doubtless help men who would otherwise be too frightened of the potential legal repercussions

Semantics here, as I think we mean the same thing.
But I prefer de-criminalization over "legalization".
The latter implies licensing, fees, and taxes.
All of which I am against.