Thats ok, but what if its unanswerable in its present form?






You want to risk everything on our present day knowledge and application of quantum physics?

In 100 years we will be utilising transmission of matter and creating force fields.We very likely will be approaching the ability to become immortal in one form or another. We will be moving out into the solar system and starting the procees of intergenerational starships if we havent discovered faster than light drive . Quantum computers, ais, and organically modelled computers, operating and processing thousands of times faster rhan a human mind, will already have been operating and looking at humanity's options for over 50 years.

Im sorry but limiting ourselves, or the universe, to the restricted potentialities offered by our present science, doesnt cut the mustard for me. Sentience, given time, can accomlish anything it can imagine.

Eventually ( and really i think in the not too distant future) we will possess the knowledge of how to overcome entropy and the conservation of energy. They will be seen as interesting historical anachronisms, no more relevant to modern science than nitrous oxide is to present medicine. But we have to get there. We have to evolve and to present future potentialities for this to happen. (if we dont, some other sentience will, but being quite specieist, i rather like the idea of humanity being the ones to save the universe)
I dont know if my life or your life will contribute ( i wont be passing on my genes, most likely, but perhaps my hubris , confidence and ideas might contribute something).

At heart i think you are making an unjustifiable judgement about the nature and future of our universe, but whatever you or i thin.k there is a potentiality that all these things will happen. and as long as humanity lives that potentiality lives onThe longer it lives the greater the potentiality becomes. thus our ethics and moralities influence the likelihood of our survival and ultimately the survival of the universe itself.





We are not creating meanig (although we may be contributing to it). That meaning exists independent of our subjective opinions. Mankind may never die(but even if it did, think what glories it might accomplish in its lifetime). An artist always dies. Should he or she not paint because of that? It is not false happiness because if happiness exists then sentience exists and thus meaning exists and so the happiness is real.

I love your posts brave and really enjoy the debate. I cant seem to agree on the terms of this debate ,and i hope that is not frustrating you too much but it is giving me some temporary meaning, purpose, and a great deal of happiness to exercise my mind and formalise/present my viewpoints. I also get something from yours and other writers even if this time i cant undersand what you are really getting at.

I completely understand what you are saying. linguistically. It is just so alien to my nature, that i see it as an utter falsity. Meaning once it exists. never dies. Thas why poets and writers write, why musicians compose, why painters paint, and lovers love. Its not something to be sad about, its an integral part of humanity and something to rejoice in. Everything we do contributes purpose and meaning to the universe, and that purpose and meaning will potentially live forever.If you truly dont understand why you would plant a flower which will die in a year, let alone why you would have a child who might die in 6 months, a hundred years or perhaps 500 years, then it is no wonder that we find it difficult to communicate on this particular issue. But still it is both enjoyable and educational( Like planting a flower or having a child )

Thats whats so great about being HUMAN.

Then just say it is.



For the sake of this debate, YES.






Im glad you are expressing yourself and dont want to put an end to it. Just pointing out that it isnt in my view relevant to this thread and therefore wont debate it.

It is all perspective. It does not matter if loved ones are also there by chance. The difference is plenty when it comes to fulfilling minutes, hours, and days and that is the difference it makes. Why see things in terms of dying for loved ones? Why not living for them and self? Someone entering or viewing death through the lens of panic and disappear only clue in the audience that the person with that perspective lacks meaning, purpose, and fulfillment in their lives. Others clearly have all three so they especially can tell. I have been in both positions so I only speak from my knowledge of being in both. Perhaps others have different experiences.

But it will run out and then there will be nothing. It is like living in a house you cant leave with a time bomb that will go off in a year and knowing it will and knowing you cant leave it.



Well you said putting your loved ones are the forefront. I assume that dying for them if they are in danger is a high expression of such forefront love.



But my hypothesis is that there is no utimate meaning and those who create their own meaning are doing it with the knowledge that it is delusional and objectively meaningless.

But we are faced with the time bomb scenario except we know the average human lifespan is seventy to one hundred and twenty years. People live in these conditions and make the best of it but having a belief in the afterlife helps.

Dying is indeed the greatest show of love in that case according to your example. In a way that is why people grow old and die to begin with to make space for a younger generation. If we were eternal we would run out of space and resources. If we were eternal we would have no need of propagation which is the number one objective of all species. We are eternal through propagation.

My hypothesis is that it is perspective and regardless of illusion, a much better word than delusion, we can choose to see it as purposeful or meaningless. As I stated I have been in both boats so understand your viewpoint, but since I have been through both mindsets, I come to believe it is about choosing, we can choose to live or choose to die, regardless if the process for both takes decades. We are in essence living, gaining experience, and dying, degenerating, so we can choose perspective, even bounce between the two. The phrase a new found purpose in life springs to mind.

Love the poetry of this, source, but as you'll see from my lengthy posts, i believe sentience is the ONLY thing which, (through self aware will, and intelligence to create and manipulate technology) has a hold over the otherwise; random, chaotic or perhaps evolutionarily determined workings of the universe.. I like to think(but this is just metaphysical musings), that that is why the universe "created"/evolved us into existence.
To establish order and purpose in its other wise undisciplined existence.

If soil was sentient you'd have a different attitude to it and be a bit more respectful/cautiousl of it. If grass had the will and ability to kick back we wouldnt need to put up signs saying keep off the grass.. One of the interesting things about the human condition, is that we have never been forced to confront an equal or superior sentience(unless you count god)

Comes from living way out here on the galactic rim i suspect.

Apart from influencing our own construction of god, that has had a great impact on the psychological evolution of humanity.

Not only that but through irreducible complexity the soil is just perfect to provide the resource of which to feed us and allowing life.

This suddenly comes to mind for a reason...

SAFE upon the solid rock the ugly houses stand:
Come and see my shining palace built upon the sand!

Second Fig by Edna St. Vincent Millay

Can you expand on that? Soil is now irreducibly complex?

Please dont let this become an evolution vs creation. My hypothesis is that of evolution and big bang and that only and that outside of breeding and survival there is no meaning to life, which in turn is ultimately meaningless because the universe and the life that came with it was an accident without purpose.

If it was the case that God existed and that he had infact made each and every one of us with a purpose, wouldn't that be more terrifying than living without any meaning at all? An earthly purpose amounts to a fate. If we all had a fate on this Earth, it would mean that in the end we have actually done nothing. The crap's already been planned out. We would be the puppet show of God. What you are going to do is already known and was thought out before you were even born; your supposed purpose is an illusion.

And let's just say that you fulfil your purpose here on Earth, and you die peacefully and happily. What then? What is your purpose then? You now live in Heaven, where you will remain for all of time. Now, your problem of a purpose has increased by multitudes. Now you have the same problem you did on Earth when you thought the entirety of existence was meaningless, except now, you live forever and you can't get out of it because you can't kill yourself. An eternity of meaninglessness.

We make our own purposes in this meaningless world. Why? To keep us from getting bored. That's the only reason, and it's a damn good one. If I'm not amused then I do not want to live.

Humankind as it is today will eventually become extinct, either by completely dying out or evolving into something we can only speculate about. And more to the point, all the morality that we have today will no longer exist as well. So in the end what purpose did it serve to be sentient?


Bold mine.

Those examples sound more like survival instinct than sentience. Disturb bees and they sting you. Get between a mother bear and her cubs and you're one dead camper. Neither bees nor bears are considered sentient.But this does bring me back to the point I was trying to make earlier. It's just my opinion, but I believe sentience was the result of early humans developing better ways to survive. When our species no longer needed to devote most of it's brain power devising ways to escape predators it began inventing all sorts of intangible ideas, one of which was a set of morals.

We and our ideas are not the end all, be all of the planet, let alone the universe. We will hang around as long as we can, then move on. And when that happens our sentience and our morals won't even be so much as a memory.

Yes and no. Because even if everything we do has already been planned by something divine we are not aware of it and therefore it still apears new and spontaneous to us. If we wanted what fate wanted then nothing could go against our will . Also if our purpose was illusory and controlled by fate then surely we would be as illusory as the fate? And if our free-will was an illusion of fate or God then we could feel justified in using that illusion in doing whatever we wanted because we wouldnt have to take responsibility for our actions. Therefore even with fate ironically there is no incentive for morals and if we do then it will be because fate or God has chosen us to. However this is acknowledging some kind of morally guided force which pervades the seemingly meaningless universe. If this was the case then science would have to recognize that the universe and life was no accident but a creation of an unobservable higher power.

Then the argument of ethics would more or less come down to whether or not this higher power whether called fate or God gave us free-will or not etc.

In such a situation we could always feel as if we did no wrong because we ourselves arnt doing anything. If we are lucky (meaning if fate or God chooses to) we may even be shown such knowledge and be given a state of happiness.

And if we did have free-will then we would acknowledge (with what is said above) that the universe isnt meaningless but was given purpose and meaning by fate or God and therefore we would inquire what is our purpose from fate or God with our free-will (assuming of course that by fulfilling our purpose from god or fate gives us happiness, in which case if morals were involved we may actually not be moral in doing so but merely employing them for the happiness out of selfishness and therefore not truly being moral necause true morality is to love for the sake of love without thinking or wanting return).

This is off topic however.


I am not saying I agree with the above suggestions but have merely put them there as suggestions.





There might be further meaning in 'heaven'. However you raise an interesting point. It seems to me to come down to whether or not I was in a constant state of bliss or happiness. Because in such a state I may not care whether there is purpose or not and if such a state was going to be for eternity then how could I ever get depressed to want to kill myself or leave such a state of being as under the forces of fate.



Ya but such meanings and purposes can be created that exclude morals. I can think of many meanings and purposes I could take up to keep me from boredom and still not be moral.

This then comes to my original question which I wont state here but say that it is the original post.

i would say if the interworkings of the universe(multiverse) is/are regulated by an unseen force or law than that would be my beginning point of interest. then i would look for relationships and the influence that it has there after
but i think im just confusing myself

morals i think is for me based on my environment
if i was raised in the city my morals would probably be different than if i was raised in a tribal jungle environment.
idk good thread

purpose is ones own perception. If you believe morals and purpose are meaningless that is your perception.

something my g-ma has told me for a long time ,life is what you make of it. If you don't want anything out of life that is your agenda. I don't think agendas are necessarily pre-planned. I think they are realized and not meant to be a clearly defined. purpose is for you to figure out for yourself?
that is only my own opinion though

Just checking out some of your threads. There is no incentive, we created incentive with Gods like the God in the OT! lol
Don't forget, we are just animals, "you and me baby we ain't nothin' but mammals," you know that song? True that, we are just another animal species on the planet, one who became smart enough to develop to our level but why would there be anything in us that is suppose to achieve anything apart from survival? That notion to me is crazy and the real reason I probably don't believe in God. It really is just not there, we are just animals. imo of course.
Maybe the incentive is our own conscience.

Stories like Atlantis show us why we should be moral and look for virtue in ourselves and if you want an answer in another context, the reason could be to reach our 'perfect state'.

What if "life" is the answer to the question: Why is there a universe? Meaning, although we've yet to discover life elsewhere but our own planet, logic dictates that it must exist exponentially throughout the vastness, then isn't it possible that life itself is the moral meaning of the question?

Our perfect state could easily mean a state of enlightenment or oneness with God. In that sense an imperative for morals is that all is one and therefore hurting others is the same as hurting oneself. But then is that true morals? We look out for others because it is us? That could be selfish as well. The last line of argument would be that we love one another because it is our nature to love. But if it is our nature then we cant help but do. Are we then being moral or just following our normal (metaphysic) nature?

As for following conscience we could argue what is the incentive for following it?



How would life in itself be the answer?

indeed Michael.....moral considerations greatly increase the difficulty of clear thinking IMO It is commonly argued that in order to be virtuous it is only nessecary to repeat virtuous formulas and call oneself moral...

this is an excellent question "isn't it possible that life itself is the moral meaning of the question?"

brave we talk a great deal and imagine that in doing so we are showing that we can think but what if that the talk that we listen to can be explained without supposing that people think???? how about if its just a habit of language ???? e.g. morals for instance...

I can't help but be humbled by how adequate this hypothhessi turns out to be.....

As you know I am a Atheist for me this is the only Life I have and there is nothing else waiting for me after I die. I have one Life which makes it even more precious to me and I wish to enjoy it and be happy. If I had no morals then that would mean that people would get hurt and offended which would make me enemies and they would wish to hurt and offend me, then I would not enjoy that life because I would be angry and miserable. If I were to make many friends though, life would be that little bit better because I would be happy and so would my friends.


It is best to have a good life filled with loved ones and friends, than have a miserable empty life filled with enemies who wish to hurt and offend you.

I sympathize with your view but since we are all gonna die anyways then why does it matter whether we have a miserable life or not?



Im searching for the true incentive to use morals.

Because we would not like having a miserable life, that's the thing, we would not want it so we try not to have a miserable life even if we know we are going to die in the end.

This depends on the individual. In my view because there is nothing at the end it makes me more anxious over the life I have got and makes me all the more miserable for it.

I wonder why people need to have something more then the life that they have.

It Feel;s better to Love and Be Loved, Being imoral usually leads to hurting another , This is a painful thing to do and does not feel so good..

So Basically because it feels good
Hope that's not too simple. Sometimes I have to keep it simple Or I forget why.
Love Omnaka

On the OP:
I've truly never understood this argument/ideology.
I'm atheist, and the meaning to life seems so ridiculously simple... How can you guys miss it?
The rules to live your life are simple ones that are like mathematical axioms; They should not be questioned.
Here are the basic rules:
1. Try not to hurt others.
2. Be kind and good to others.
3. Help out the world.
4. Help out mankind in any ways you can.
5. Do what you love to do! Become a biologist, mathematician, philosopher, programmer, whatever.
6. Have some fun! Go places, relax, do stuff with friends, etc.
7. Try not to hurt yourself with drugs, suicide, extremely unhealthy eating, or smoking. Don't take this rule to an extreme, but use sense.
8. Learn, learn, learn, and Learn! Besides 1+2, this is probably the most important rule.
9. Try to follow the rules as much as possible. Obviously, that will not always be possible, but just use your judgment.
10. The Earth is the place many of our children will live. Keep it awesome. Keep the plants working, keep species alive. Environmentalism isn't just about the Earth; It is about preserving it's incredibility for future generations.
11. When faced with a choice between selfishness and the more important good, for everyone else's sake, just choose the more important good!

I guess these rules do not cover everything especially stuff like abortion. I personally frown on abortion; I cannot understand who would advocate killing a child, whether officially living or not. It goes against my rules, you see. I believe in a world where people followed these rules, stuff like abortion would not be necessary, unless the woman's life was in danger, or another easy reason.
Obviously, I AM against making abortion illegal.

Anyway- Perhaps these rules do not work for everyone, but they work for me.

In case you didn't pick it up from the rules, the meaning of MY LIFE would be to follow the rules as best as possible. However, the meaning of OUR LIFE I personally believe is to create a better society where everyone can follow the rules to the utmost, and be as happy as humanly possible, with scientific achievements and everyone doing what they love.


Obviously, this is a long way off, but unlike several people (whom I believe are rather depressed) who think such a society is not possible, I believe it is so. I also believe we are going to get there, but that organized religion is a hindrance to such a society.

So, in conclusion, the meaning and morals of the universe just seem obvious to me, even if I am a godless liberal.

Now, for some quoting!


I've always loved my life, even with the suck-ish parts. I fully concur that the meaning of each of our lives is living our life to the fullest, according to the basic morals and rules.

Oh yeah; People might be like "LOLZ you believe in Evolution, so you believe that we are all stinkin animals that should go back to the cave man ages!!". Contrary to this kind of belief, I believe that we SHOULD rise above being 'animals'. We are social creatures, and atheists and theists alike understand that we are quite a bit smarter and different then other animals on our planet.


Except Irreducible Complexity doesn't exist. If you are so sure, I dare you to give me an example.
(As in, I already Know the examples you will give, and I already know the answers, so go ahead!)


Because it is an axiom that we MUST ACCEPT in order to live life.
Evolution created emotions and societies FOR THE BETTER of species. We love, and we are moral to keep our species going. It is an evolutionary advantage to be moral.


I've explained the following:
A. Evolution created Emotions and Society and 'basic morals' to better our species: To help it progress. It makes sense then that we should follow them to better our species.

B. Morality is a basic axiom we must accept in order to achieve the utopia I mentioned.


I agree. Belle, post #95 captured a lot of what I have to say, and I agree with most of it.


Cheers,
SQLserver

LOL, I think I agree with Omnaka.

I actually share more in common with the religious people here. I Believe in a higher purpose for humanity. I believe that we can rise above normal life. I also believe that something, created by Evolution, allowed us to become different from normal animals, even those that are conscious, have language, and morals.

I believe that from an Evolutionary standpoint- Morals, fun, society, and language were created to better our species. Thus, we should use them. A species that does not kill each other, a species that does not destroy DOES BETTER from an Evolutionary perspective.

I also believe that we must take care of other species and the Earth, as not doing WILL end in our own destruction. Also, the amazing beauty and elegance of the natural world must be preserved for future generations.

Cheers,
SQLserver

i know that brave its a good inquiry one i undertook once upon a time....i am sharng where I am at with it these days...... these are the sort of questions that should be asked kudos to you...

Because the idea of non-existence is scary and morbid.

why???? I think its beautiful...therein lies the greatest problem with man IMO...perhaps the idea is to live life to its full potential versus settling for a life ......

Sounds like great tenants for a compassionate religion. However these codes of conduct dont tell us any depth as to why we should live by them (regardless how obvious they stand out to you). They tell us that we should be moral but doesnt cater to any philosophical depth as to why.



We are all gonna die anyways. So why is it worse if one dies before they attached to life? Wouldnt that be better? Why bother if we are gonna die anyways and forget it all? Why bring up children only to say to them 'enjoy life and family while it lasts because it wont be long until you are ripped from the splendors of life andin the grave forever'.

Isnt that just cruel?




Because the every day layman just loves the glories of science and mathes.





So there is an intelligent force behind evolution that wants us to progress and be happy with science?

Why?


Eternal sleep sounds wonderful.

If you value happiness, love and enjoyment out of life then why deny it to others regardless of wether or not you actually believe in spirituality?

I agree with that argument to an extent. In this sense since this is what is gonna happen to us all anyway whether we live a moral or immoral life then it doesnt give much of an incentive to live a moral or rich living life. When I am dead in eternal sleep I wont even remember that I ever was alive let alone a good person.

Hence we are back to square one. Where is the incentive to be moral?

Why not deny it to others? I could simply choose to deny it to others because I may put personal ego pleasure and gain above morality and doing what is right. Since we are all gonna die anyways and not remember what we did when alive or suffer the consequences of what we did when alive why should I put myself out for others when there is personal selfish gain to be had?

Why do you need to have some sort of belief in a afterlife or God/Godess to be a moral person? surely you are not that shallow.

But I am! It is morals that keep me in check! I am looking for an incentive to be moral here. I am not trying to justify God.

The Ultimate question regardless of science or religion one may never know. but thats the point.

we have an existence but what can we do with it or rather what would you rather do with it.

in the long run most rules are here to protect us.

If i kill someone on purpose then there is nothing to debate about someone killing me.

Id rather be happy then miserable.
miserable people tend to make others miserable.
so making others happy makes sense.

Live the live you expect others to live.

Seemingly so!



We also have the fear of non-existence at the end of existence.



I commend you on these words. I actually agree with them. However as you will know they still dont give a truly in depth reason for being moral.

Whats to stop other people doing it to you?

If people want happyness, love and enjoyment in life the only way it happens is if all people treat each other in a moral and professional way. Otherwise we may as well scrap society and devolve into going around killing each other for food and women becaase thats at the end of the route your heading down.

In my view nothing.



Why should matter if we did head down that route? If you read my original post at the beginning of the thread you see that I question this in different words. What difference does it make to the universe whether or not we have a beautiful civilization or a rampant ruthless society?

LOL, BravenewWorld, hahaha. This is certainly frustrating, because I can only answer most of your questions with "I don't know"!




Something is better then nothing, right?


Haha, yeah, forgot about that. I remain adamant in the belief that everyone can find a job that they truly enjoy, in the academics, outdoors, sports, or somewhere. A job where they are doing something other than robot work. I believe that everyone can love what they do.


Well, Natural Selection isn't intelligent. But observing natural selection tells us:
1. Science and progress and thinking help species survive.
2. For a species to survive, we must take care of each other.
3. For a species to survive, we must take care of the environment.

So, if all life is is based on Evolution and naturalism, then we should remain moral and helpful and such.



No. It is supporting our species. Using your logic there should be no reason for us to reproduce at all. Every child has a chance to grow into someone who will benefit everyone.
NOT that abortion should be illegal. Sometimes, children will not benefit families or moms.


Sigh. I just guess that the 3 main reasons that we should stay moral are:
A. It gives our species an Evolutionary advantage, which often seems to be the point of most life forms.
B. Morality helps our individuals be happy.
C. It doesn't matter that you won't remember anything when you die. It matters that the future will remember you. I'm not talking about fame, or anything. But, most of us will be recorded in the future as good people.

Besides that, I give up. I don't know. I'll continue leading my life the best way I can, whether it will amount to anything or whether it won't.

Cheers,
SQLserver

Well let's strip everything away and see what we are left with.......
I still believe it's our conscience or guilt factor - do something that is moral and we feel pretty good, no feelings creep in that disturb us, but when we act immoral or make choices that hurt others, generally our conscience feels this and we feel 'bad'.
Our conscience guides us, we even have bad dreams often if we have done something that we 'know' was wrong, it plays on our mind. This is natural. It is not created, these are natural deep down, emotions that control us and this is the crux of it all imo.

Act moral, feel good, act immoral, feel bad. That is the incentive to act nice and do good, be moral and live virtuous, anything other than that produces negative emotions that then play on us, in our dreams, on our mind, in our conscience - which would have then overflowed into death, seen in the weighing of our heart, which determined whether we lived on in the afterlife in wonderful bliss, nice dreams, or eternal hell, bad dreams.
When you are dead and in eternal sleep how do you know you stop dreaming? I believe the ancients thought we stayed dreaming and that was our afterlife and why they buried us with things to use, the afterlife is an eternal dream controlled by our conscience in life..........make sense??
Even with no afterlife, my guilty conscience which also comes through in our dreams, makes me act better.
If you want to feel crappy and have feelings of guilt and sadness with declining health through negative emotions, act immoral.......

I too believe the universe has no inherent meaning; or rather meaning IS inherent but it is only as a consequence of man being the organ which generates it. Mankind is the mechanism of abstraction in existence. This brings one to post-modernism of course: meaning is what you make of it and everyone's meaning is equally valid. There are no moral and ethical absolutes; no great sky father to watch and judge you harshly. There are no laws for human conduct set in stone. The subjective is the mother of all things.

I am an atheist (after battling off a recent bout of faith)

To get to your question:
Why not live a hedonistic and self-indulgent lifestyle, certain in the knowledge that you'll never have to pay for it? Why not make your own happiness your ultimate goal?

Answer:

I do. I lead a life that is self-indulgent and hedonistic; I revel in material and corporeal pleasures. My happiness is my primary concern. I am ultimately extremely selfish and live as such. That said, I still live ethically (without having explicitly supernatural "ethics").

I am good and kind to those I care for, I do good by others whenever I can and, all in all, am concerned for those around me. How can I be an ethical atheistic hedonist?

MY HAPPINESS IS CONTINGENT UPON THE HAPPINESS OF OTHERS.

I could never be truly happy if I were living it up and all those around me suffered. I would be unhappy. I am happy with my fellows.

Even if my actions are purely the result of sociobiological factors (My need to be in a group and in good standing -a social double blind) hits is sufficient to fulfill the requirement for moral behaviour and care for others.

To those that would point out how disingenuous this self-serving approach is or say this is of a lower moral order I wold say: A great deal of misery has been caused by those proselytizing for lofty moral laws and judges. If good is the end-product, does it matter from whence it originates?

Actions speak louder than words.

I think Father Is proud of your accountability.

Love Omnaka

Even though you dont provide and fundamental answers in my view I still appreciate your answer. I admire your optimism.

What if the subject says that there is moral absolute? Then subjectively for that person a form of objective morals if you like is the mother of morals at least.



While I like your response it still doesnt philosophically do it for me. I myself also strive to be moral and wouldnt want anyone else to stop doing also. I am simply asking why do I act morally.

If I lived a hedonistic lifestyle (a rich one) then surely I would want a certain number of friends and family happy, however I could be happy within this lifestyle fully conscious that hundreds of thousands if not millions (or billions) have to live in poverty or squalor. This being said, I can claim a certain measure of happiness but no real morality.

What would be the incentive in this situation to perhaps be philanthropic? Remember that I am already materialistically and emotionally happy with my wealth and lusts. My small circle of equally happy non-caring folk also are satisfied. Such a situation is hardly moral. My happiness can therefore rest on a large quantity of unhappy suffering people.

See where I am coming from?

I agree and disagree. Does George Bush truly feel bad for the hundreds of thousands of people who have had to die in Iraq? Do the fantastically rich corporate giants in the countries of South America feel guilty for the millions upon millions of peasants who live in squalor and tent shanties? If they feel guilty then their conscience is taking a while to kick in. In the mean time what is their incentive to be moral and bring financial equality to the people they exploit?





I like what you are saying here. I really do. I even think there may be truth to it. However I strictly want to keep away from any form of metaphysics or anything with a spiritual or religious connotation.

I'm sure they have trouble sleeping at night. Whether they act on it is another thing. Greed and power, which feel good on the outside can overtake the inside emotions keeping them from being noticed.






Good, I'm glad you liked it - it does hinge on a philosophical view. I was just using the religious afterlife comparison to make a point of how our actions can affect us in other ways that we don't even know or think about or even comprehend. There has to be no religious or spiritual connection in it at all. You should know that I avoid those things myself being a non religious or spiritual person.
Guilt is the product of bad or immoral deeds. We all know the phrase "a guilty conscience". It manifests in dreams.

Thanks Sheri. I've been asking that question (or, rather, pursuing that question academically/philosophically) for as long as I can remember. And, the question is as old as the Oral Tradition which became the OT, at least. Humbly speaking, we have just barely scratched the surface of what I call the sublime nature of life and of nature itself. Of what little we know, we can certainly state that no life is meaningless; that every living 'thing' has a multiplicity of meaning and that nature itself shows that there is a definable morality within the Laws of Nature/Natural Law.

Unconditional Lovea And spirit says it all, To me anyhoo.

Good Posts, Love Omnaka