- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 918
- Age
- 27
to masturbate into a jug
I'm the most meaningfull person I know.
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
to masturbate into a jug
Of course it is, because when there does not exist an objective or declared-upon-high purpose of life.Think about it: If purpose simply meant the intentionality imposed on an object(including people) at any time, by anyone, then the question "what is the purpose of life?" is a rather dull and almost trivial one.
Well, the concept as related to a particular thing is bound to lose that when it does not exist in the first place.And so the concept of purpose really loses that poignancy which we seem to give to it.
Because we want to know what we're here for, that we're important, that we are significant in some way outside of what we directly contribute to society or how we co-exist with our relatives, friends and other groups.Again, if purpose is simply a relativistic notion (as your example implies), then why would we even bother asking what the purpose of life is?
Because the entire question of the purpose of life stems from a time when widely-accepted religious doctrines declared purposes for everything. Even when humanity began to move away from such beliefs, the same question as to the purpose of life was still asked because it was so ingrained in our process of discovering out place in the world.or the purpose of anything for that matter?
There isn't one. That's why it's all up for debate and interpretation for people to decide whatever property of an object most closely relates to its 'purpose'.But notice, we ask what THE purpose of something is. We don't ask what A purpose is, we ask for one objective answer.
But at that other concept of purpose is not one that can be answered or defined, because nothing has an objective purpose, and even on an individual human level there is not a single purpose, meaning and/or function that applies to everyone.But the fact is that we ARE asking for a single universal answer, precisely because our concept of purpose isn't the one you propose. At least that's what seems most plausible to me.
Regardless of what my stance is in regards to the purpose of something (and what purpose actually is) - it doesn't change the fact that the majority interpretation of purpose requires a creator; for objects forged naturally and artifically, and for humanity and the universe itself, and for anything not forged by living things, and even living things themselves, we know there is not a single, objective purpose. The closest that can be gotten to that is a subjective majority consensus, and even that still isn't anywhere near an objective purpose.My point is that if the word purpose really meant what you take it to mean, then we wouldn't even bother asking the question "what is the purpose of life?". And yet, the fact that we have been asking this question throughout human history seems to me a good indicator that you are not actually addressing what we indeed mean by the word "purpose".
The point of this statement was that the idea of a purpose of something as simple and expressly made as a tool is not an idea equally applicable to life or humanity. To give a 'purpose' to life or humanity, you need define purpose differently.What do you mean by this? You have made it your purpose?
If by saying you've made it your purpose to be intelligent, creative, and compassionate (one could certainly argue whether you can just "decide" to be creative and intelligent), you're simply asserting that you want to lead a life in which you live up to those standards, then I would say you've set goals for yourself. But I am not sure the concept of "goal" equates with "purpose".
Yes, I will admit the phrasing was awkward, but with every change that comes about in a person in some way or another makes a new being that is different from its 'predecessor'.Besides, I don't think you really believe you've created a new entity. If I showed you a picture of when you were a kid and asked you who that was you would undoubtedly answer "me". Change is a tricky issue, and I'd rather avoid the metaphysical debate that will come of discussing it (which also involves the philosophy of time), since I get enough of that in school. Suffice it to say that there is a sense in which changing something about yourself makes you into a new person, but committing yourself to the idea that you've created a "new entity" is actually very counterintuitive and problematic and you should consider the implications before making the claim.
oh god my head you're right i shouldn't have brought this upFor example, when you say the statement "I've created a new entity" it would technically be the new entity asserting, but the one who did the creating was the old-you, not the new-you so how could the new-you make the assertion using the word "I" when it in fact wasn't the new-you at all doing the creating?
Well, yeah, humans are dynamic beings at every level of their being, be it physical, psychological, societal, and what have you.Not to mention that at every single moment we are changing physically, molecules move, cells restructure, atoms, protons, electrons, etc. We are not static beings, so literally every moment in time you are not the same as you were a moment before (moment is a vague and very problematic term, but for now and for argument's sake take it to mean an incredibly, ridiculously small unit of time). Therefore if you're committed to the view that a change constitutes the birth of a "new entity", then there is no "you" except for a brief moment in time, after that moment you would be (quite literally) a different person, and the moment after that another person again, and so on.
I do not consider things as literally, objectively a new being - I don't take such a stance as to subscribe to it literally. It might be better to say the dynamic and static elements of people or things persist. Though we are always changing, there always remain commonalities in some form.This is essentially the rejection of the idea of persistence, once of the most basic and fundamental intuitions we have. We inherently believe that things persist. If I see that the tree in my backyard is green in spring, and I come back in fall and it's red, I assume it is still the same tree, it seems silly to think that the old tree popped out of existence and a new, almost identical, red tree took its place (though it is certainly a logical possibility, nobody really believes that, even if they say they do).
As mentioned previously, I don't subscribe to the idea literally, and I see it as a hybrid of what is/isn't 'us' and what used to be 'us'. Were I to say I or you with regard to a literal interpretation of this idea, then 'I' would be referring to the parts of me that have persisted at some stage or another. At one point in time, there would always be at least two persisting stands of my being, the early and later parts of which overlap, as well as those strands with others forwards and backwards in time.Notice that if you reject persistence, the words "I" or "you" or any similar word would become rather obsolete, because even as you would utter the word "I" you'd be changing, hence it would be a different person as the word "I" leaves your lips, hence by the time you finish uttering "I", the word would lose all meaning since the person being referred to by the word wouldn't be the same person saying it at all -- and yet I is a self-referring term, meaning the person uttering it is the one being referred to by the word.
Literally, it would be. But for me the commonalities between successive entities that would otherwise be entirely separate beings define their persistence.After all the idea of creating a new entity is incompatible with the idea of persistence through time.
I know I have previously posted, but allow me to rephrase it. The purpose of life, is itself.