Personally, I find that there is almost no point in living, other than to see it all through to the end. There is beauty in the journey, and there is certainly excitement and fun to be had, but ultimately, everything we do (as a society, as individuals, as a race) will disappear. Does that make it all meaningless, or is there an alternative to this nihilistic lens I see the world through?
I am a humanistic atheist. I also reject the idea of a life after this one. I say that in order to give a basis for argument, not to come across as a brat.
As far as I can tell there is no objective purpose to living, but that means we can define our own subjective purposes for our lives. We can experience happiness, and we enjoy experiencing happiness, so why not exploit that?
Why don' t you stop complaining about if there is a point of living and actually live your life!
[QUOTE=wooletang;43802277]Personally, I find that there is almost no point in living, other than to see it all through to the end. There is beauty in the journey, and there is certainly excitement and fun to be had, [b]but ultimately, everything we do (as a society, as individuals, as a race) will disappear.[/b][/QUOTE]
You don't know that? Even the world's end won't necessarily stop us from going just a wee-bit further than that.
But yes, I can't put up much of an argument there.. We will likely just disappear in the end, almost like as if nothing ever happened. But if there is a point to living then I'd say it's to survive for as long as possible. Who knows what one could come up with when given long enough time, energy and resources?
[QUOTE=Ziks;43802348]As far as I can tell there is no objective purpose to living, but that means we can define our own subjective purposes for our lives. We can experience happiness, and we enjoy experiencing happiness, so why not exploit that?[/QUOTE]
Living for subjective reasons is no more meaningful than saying one should live because they like certain colors a lot.
Essentially, if you want to live, then you should and if you don't want to live, then you shouldn't. I see no other logical response based on a purely subjective viewpoint.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43802546]Living for subjective reasons is no more meaningful than saying one should live because they like certain colors a lot.[/QUOTE]
Usually we can't intentionally define our subjective reason for living, but it is defined by what we enjoy doing and what we subjectively believe to be important.
[QUOTE]Essentially, if you want to live, then you should and if you don't want to live, then you shouldn't. I see no other logical response based on a purely subjective viewpoint.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much what I said. Your reason for living is defined by you.
[QUOTE=Ziks;43802584]That's pretty much what I said. Your reason for living is defined by you.[/QUOTE]
The problem of course is that this reasoning means that what we call evil can be and often is completely logical and follows from correct reasoning. For example: If Hitler found joy in the holocaust, then he was acting logically and we can make no objective declaration about his actions being bad.
We can say nothing more then, "I disagree with his choices."
[editline]5th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ziks;43802584]Usually we can't intentionally define our subjective reason for living, but it is defined by what we enjoy doing and what we subjectively believe to be important.[/QUOTE]
I was more talking about the complete lack of a compelling argument for subjective purpose. To say one should live for any subjective reason is no more logical than saying one should live for their favorite color.
It's more of an emotional appeal than a rational argument.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43803668]The problem of course is that this reasoning means that what we call evil can be and often is completely logical and follows from correct reasoning. For example: If Hitler found joy in the holocaust, then he was acting logically and we can make no objective declaration about his actions being bad.
We can say nothing more then, "I disagree with his choices."
[editline]5th February 2014[/editline]
I was more talking about the complete lack of a compelling argument for subjective purpose. To say one should live for any subjective reason is no more logical than saying one should live for their favorite color.
It's more of an emotional appeal than a rational argument.[/QUOTE]
yep
that's a thing
I guess that means moral relativists support hitler right
[QUOTE=sgman91;43803668]The problem of course is that this reasoning means that what we call evil can be and often is completely logical and follows from correct reasoning. For example: If Hitler found joy in the holocaust, then he was acting logically and we can make no objective declaration about his actions being bad.
We can say nothing more then, "I disagree with his choices."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]It's more of an emotional appeal than a rational argument.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43803750]yep
that's a thing
I guess that means moral relativists support hitler right[/QUOTE]
They don't support him. They just can't objectively say he did anything wrong.
I think the point of living is to ensure the survival of your gene code/DNA. Well its not really a point but seems to be a huge fucking game of Crusader Kings 2; pop out some kids and ensure their lives are inherently better than yours was by working your arse off.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43804129]They don't support him. They just can't objectively say he did anything wrong.[/QUOTE]
and that's fine
it doesn't allow it to happen any easier than it does with moral objectivity
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43804907]and that's fine
it doesn't allow it to happen any easier than it does with moral objectivity[/QUOTE]
Sure it does. There's a massive difference if doing "evil" is complete rational or not. It simply isn't rational under a viewpoint that holds ultimate consequences based on objective morals, even if it makes you happy. Without those ultimate consequences a rational human can do "evil" and be completely consistent.
but it's a huge assumption to have those objective morals and pretend you know them...
i mean what's an objective moral? what's a truly objective one that no one can dispute? Then what are the ones that are disputable? How do you know what's objective or not
i mean that's a bigger problem for me than the possibility of people being able to see what they're doing as the right thing.
if you objectively believed that god said stoning disobedient kids was a right action, would you not be wrong to do anything but that?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43804985]but it's a huge assumption to have those objective morals and pretend you know them...
i mean what's an objective moral? what's a truly objective one that no one can dispute? Then what are the ones that are disputable? How do you know what's objective or not
i mean that's a bigger problem for me than the possibility of people being able to see what they're doing as the right thing.
if you objectively believed that god said stoning disobedient kids was a right action, would you not be wrong to do anything but that?[/QUOTE]
Whether objective morals exist or not is irrelevant to my point.
"evil" is very possibly rational under one system and purely irrational in the other. This major difference must play a role into choices that people make.
[QUOTE=wooletang;43802277]Personally, I find that there is almost no point in living, other than to see it all through to the end. There is beauty in the journey, and there is certainly excitement and fun to be had, but ultimately, everything we do (as a society, as individuals, as a race) will disappear. Does that make it all meaningless, or is there an alternative to this nihilistic lens I see the world through?
I am a humanistic atheist. I also reject the idea of a life after this one. I say that in order to give a basis for argument, not to come across as a brat.[/QUOTE]
Well, it seems most living organisms try to just survive even if there is no REAL point in it. You might as well make the best of it, you only got one shot.
but are we not speaking of the application of these systems?
if one system is better on paper it doesn't make it any better in reality if it doesn't end up working
if you're going to tell me "an objective morality would be better" I would probably agree. but as comforting as that may be, I see no reason why it's true and I also see a great deal of flaws with the idea of it as well as it requires a great many deal of things that I just don't see, but I suppose they could possibly happen eventually.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43805643]but are we not speaking of the application of these systems?
if one system is better on paper it doesn't make it any better in reality if it doesn't end up working
if you're going to tell me "an objective morality would be better" I would probably agree. but as comforting as that may be, I see no reason why it's true and I also see a great deal of flaws with the idea of it as well as it requires a great many deal of things that I just don't see, but I suppose they could possibly happen eventually.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's already been shown that a strong belief in Hell lowers the crime rate. ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/belief-in-hell-lowers-cri_n_1609247.html[/url])
[QUOTE=sgman91;43805697]Well, it's already been shown that a strong belief in Hell lowers the crime rate. ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/belief-in-hell-lowers-cri_n_1609247.html[/url])[/QUOTE]
Your own article
[quote]"The key finding is that, controlling for each other, a nation's rate of belief in hell predicts lower crime rates, but the nation's rate of belief in heaven predicts higher crime rates, and these are strong effects, said Azim F. Shariff, professor of psychology and director of the Culture and Morality Lab at the UO. [/quote]
[quote] A country where many more people believe in heaven than in hell, for example, is likely to have a much higher crime rate than one where these beliefs are about equal. [/quote]
So do you only believe in Hell?
That is quite alot of optimism.
Grappling with finitude is a really really mind boggling thing.
I see a point.
To grow and become a better human being, through experiences, social activity, rigorous education, earning a livelihood through a career, maybe starting a family and becoming a parent and having a child of your own to repeat all that I just said.
[QUOTE=Flameon;43807164]Your own article
So do you only believe in Hell?[/QUOTE]
Notice how I specifically have only been mentioning negative consequences for doing bad actions.
the purpose in living as a social being such as humans is to advance civilization or create offspring so they can advance. If you think life hasn't a purpose then you must think any sort or accomplishment achieved by humans is pointless. What I'm typing will be read by people from all over the world, how can someone not call this an achievement. Don't be so mopey btw ._.
If there is no objective purpose to living (outside of reproduction anyway), such as an afterlife that affects everyone, reincarnation, etc. then what of the subjective reasons? Sure, at the end of the day everything you do, everything we as a species achieve, means shit in the grand scheme of things. When the stars die and the universe ends nothing we've done will mean anything.
But the here and now, that's what's important. We should spend our lives trying to push humanity forward to allow those who come after us to experience things we never could, progress as a species and not worry about wht happens when everything ends. My main motivation in life is to do things I enjoy (for obvious reasons) and to try and make things others will use to enhance their lives and let the people who can truly push boundaries do their jobs without worrying about things like "huh...we need an alternative to email/ Facebook/ whatever".
Hey, if we progress far enough in some hyopthetical future, maybe even the death of the universe won't matter as we can just jump to a new one (assuming they don't all mirror each other aging wise) :v:
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43813645]If there is no objective purpose to living (outside of reproduction anyway), such as an afterlife that affects everyone, reincarnation, etc. then what of the subjective reasons? Sure, at the end of the day everything you do, everything we as a species achieve, means shit in the grand scheme of things. When the stars die and the universe ends nothing we've done will mean anything.
But the here and now, that's what's important. We should spend our lives trying to push humanity forward to allow those who come after us to experience things we never could, progress as a species and not worry about wht happens when everything ends. My main motivation in life is to do things I enjoy (for obvious reasons) and to try and make things others will use to enhance their lives and let the people who can truly push boundaries do their jobs without worrying about things like "huh...we need an alternative to email/ Facebook/ whatever".
Hey, if we progress far enough in some hyopthetical future, maybe even the death of the universe won't matter as we can just jump to a new one (assuming they don't all mirror each other aging wise) :v:[/QUOTE]
How is trying to convince someone of (or presenting an argument for) a subjective purpose any different then trying to convince someone to have your favorite color?
I honestly don't get it. It always seems like people who believe in subjective purpose and morals are so intent on trying to get others to also believe that they have a purpose. Why? If someone says, "I have no purpose and want to commit suicide," then you have no reason to do anything but agree.
I forgot, having subjective purpose and morals makes us incapable of holding opinions or desires that include discussing with other people
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43817638]I forgot, having subjective purpose and morals makes us incapable of holding opinions or desires that include discussing with other people[/QUOTE]
How would you feel if someone was seriously trying to argue that their favorite color was better than someone else's? I see no difference between that and arguing about purpose. They are both 100% subjective.
well if you really think "purpose" and colour are the same thing just because they're subjective, I don't know what to say to you.
They're not and even though they come down to opinions, they involve vastly different things and different thought processes that separate them almost entirely. Discussions about purpose may be to change someones mind, they may not be, but in either case they're a discussion on reasons a person has done things and life experience. the sharing of this can be for whatever reason, personal ones included. IF you seriously believe that it's the same thing as arguing colour than good for you but you're simplifying the argument down so much.
Are you arguing you believe there is an objective purpose to life? How is that any less silly than arguing a subjective one? You have a lot of steps to go through on that argument.
I just feel like you see subjective people as a paradox that results in a person rolling over and dying, but that's literally nothing more than a strawman.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43817556]How is trying to convince someone of (or presenting an argument for) a subjective purpose any different then trying to convince someone to have your favorite color?
I honestly don't get it. It always seems like people who believe in subjective purpose and morals are so intent on trying to get others to also believe that they have a purpose. Why? If someone says, "I have no purpose and want to commit suicide," then you have no reason to do anything but agree.[/QUOTE]
If someone is so 100% certain that they have zero purpose in life, and would thus spend their days wallowing in self pity and not do anything to try and absolve that, why should I stop them from killing themselves? Yes, it would suck. Yes, it's a shame every time a person is driven to suicide. But if there was no way to convince them than they have some purpose, that a skill they have is actually something they could expand on, who am I to stop them?
Subjective purpose does not make me a awful person, I do not try and push the idea on to people as you suggest everyone who believes in subjective purposes and morals does, I merely bring it up if someone clearly has no direction. If someone believes they cannot contribute to the future of humanity in a remotely meaningful way, awesome, lets try to find something else for them to live for.
Objectivity is pretty fucking ace in things like science and design, that doesn't really mean it applies everywhere else. Besides, what would you call an objective reason to live? Because not everyone is going to agree with that, which kinda makes it non-objective.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
