Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
Blueogre2

The True Meaning of Life

252 posts in this topic

It's pretty simple. The true meaning of life is to live. Life is much less of a struggle for many people today given modern conviences and so many have the time to contemplate such a question. As we've evolved over time we've had more and more time to over analyze and complicate the matter. However when our life is threatened, in that moment, it becomes pretty clear what the meaning of life is. It's basic, it's simple and it's primal. To live. How you go about living is up to you. How you live your life and so on and so forth, but all of that can become irrelevant in an instant and you're left with the true meaning of life. God/s, heaven, hell, enlightenment, nirvana, etc... Afterlife... Irrelevent. The true meaning of life is to live in my opinion

Thanks for reading..

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple. The true meaning of life is to live. Life is much less of a struggle for many people today given modern conviences and so many have the time to contemplate such a question. As we've evolved over time we've had more and more time to over analyze and complicate the matter. However when our life is threatened, in that moment, it becomes pretty clear what the meaning of life is. It's basic, it's simple and it's primal. To live. How you go about living is up to you. How you live your life and so on and so forth, but all of that can become irrelevant in an instant and you're left with the true meaning of life. God/s, heaven, hell, enlightenment, nirvana, etc... Afterlife... Irrelevent. The true meaning of life is to live in my opinion

Thanks for reading..

I'll live in your opinion, what's the rent ?

I like the view already ........ :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remedial grammar lessons and its a deal? Lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meaning of life for ppl is something that gives fulfilment,

ppl who serve others ,some get bored others feel this is it, but then are we here to just be good and humble and nice,

wheres the fun in becoming too religious can got hate fun ,joy and intense involvement ,

if he created this universe,the multifaceted reality oppurtunity to think feel experience,

We can also created our meaning possibily or we can promote meaninglessnes,

the essence can be realised but overcoming the nonsense we have in our own mind is difficult,

we program our minds and we suffer,

we assume things and suffer till we realise and observe carefully,

reality evades us till we actually try to find rational experiences and consideration to every point of view ,

The experience of life is meant to be beautiful ,we have to enjoy life in its totality if possible,

My opinion,is humble ,just my thoughts, but im myself happy give it another thought today to what is the meaning of my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple. The true meaning of life is to live. Life is much less of a struggle for many people today given modern conviences and so many have the time to contemplate such a question. As we've evolved over time we've had more and more time to over analyze and complicate the matter. However when our life is threatened, in that moment, it becomes pretty clear what the meaning of life is. It's basic, it's simple and it's primal. To live. How you go about living is up to you. How you live your life and so on and so forth, but all of that can become irrelevant in an instant and you're left with the true meaning of life. God/s, heaven, hell, enlightenment, nirvana, etc... Afterlife... Irrelevent. The true meaning of life is to live in my opinion

Thanks for reading..

This is one good and sound explaination :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are designed to evolve and progress. That is the our human meaning in life. No other creatures on earth are capable of such rationality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, MW, I am not only arguing that a chair exists only in 'your' internal reality, I am arguing that it exists objectively too; therefore, making your senses more reliable in the case of sitting in a chair.

Where your sense perception fails for me is using your own internal subjective reality as the only way to verify objective reality. Namely, your angel construct. Basically, I wish we could use your internal schema but we just cannot verify your angel pal objectively using your internal subjective reality. There is no way for us to do so.

Other then to take your word as evidence and on one hand I do think it is highly likely that you have constructed a world view that includes angels. On that note-- I think, 'you think' you have an angel friend. I am fine with that --where it gets sticky for me is when you insist your perception is the only correct/possible one; therefore, can substitute as objective evidence for me. Where it is possible to think you have an angel-- it is not likely objectively because we would all be able to verify the evidence of angels, like we can with a chair.

You are so close to getting this, you are literally 9 toes in.

Th problem is that I know, using the same evidences, than an angel is as real physical and objectively existent as a chair. But you do not know this, and thus do not accpet it. There is no difference in reality, or in my mind between a real physicla angel and a real physical chair and thus there is no differnce in the way i can view them objectively, identify them and catalogue them.

There is no difference in how i can interact with them physically. It is this which you and others do not accept You keep believing that angels are some form of inner mental construct rather than external physical entities like chairs. WE must all use the same evidences proofs and logics to establish every piece of our reality. No more; no less.

An angel is no more extraordinary than a chair in my world and has the same objective proofs for its existence as a chair does.. I dont think i sit on a chair and i dont think i have an angel friend.

An angel is a physical entity capable of being seen by others, heard by others, and physically interacting with me, others, and the environment. That is just the way it is.

I had an imaginary pet dog as a young child. I could see it and no one else could, but i knew it wasnt real, because it did not offer the objective evidences which a real independent and physical entity must offer I knew it was a construct of my mind and hence it was at my beck and call. it operated as an extension of my mind and my will. Angels dont operate like that either, they are entirely self willed self motivated highly intelligent beings with knolwedge and abilities beyond my own which they can impart to me. They have physical abilities of healing, protection, and teaching/mentoring, emanating not from within me but from within them sleves.

I am a pretty cluey bloke but I dont possess super powers Those abilities come via external entities If you dont want to call these entities angels call them aliens. I dont care because that is what they actually are. For some peole having an alien as a protector sounds more rational than having an angel because it eliminates any religious aspect.

There is no religion in my conection to god and angels, and no belief. The relationship is like that between me and my dog but where I am more like the dog and god is more like me. It is a mutually beneficial sort of symbiotic connection, which involves physical and metaphysicla aspects. (As does my relationship with my dog) God, for me, is not a religious figure, precisely because he is real. He is a mate, a father and brother figure, a mentor and a protector. I never worshipped my physical father but i loved, honoured, respcted him, and listened to and learned from him. I have the same relationship with the entity I call god.

You CAN NOT have that sort of relationship with your own mental constructs.

In very simple terms, if you can accept that a chair I can see and can be seen by others has objective existence, then it is illogical and irrational to not accept that an angel I can see, touch, hear, etc and can be seen by others, does not have the same objective existence. Only you can know why you require two different criteria for acceptance of my observational accuracy and that of others..

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The true meaning of life is to live in my opinion

That is probably (I say "probably" because I have ideas that we may find out otherwise at some point) true, but I wouldn't define that as a meaning. If life has no meaning, then give it meaning. The meaning of anything is only the meaning we give it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'reality' of our common existential 'reality' is a set of pre programmed labels/values ingrained in all societies by common language and communication.

It is merely a set with props that is decidedly more popular or availability.

A chair is an illusion of itself but is a constructed illusion made useful to our needs and our comfort.

Humans can sit quite comfortably on the ground, but the idea of the chair was adapted into reality where it never existed before, as what a chair is supposed to be thus weaving its existence into the fabric of other entrenched ideas of previous generations making it a 'part' of reality.

Reality doesn't come in parts .... as far I myself is seeing it now.

In all of physics there are only six conservation laws. Each describes a quantity that is conserved, that is, the total amount is the same before and after something occurs. These laws have the restriction that the system is closed, that is, the system is not affected by anything outside it.
here

everything is conserved ... nothing was ever lost .... from then till then till when

the 'chair' is meaningless without us and would never have existed without us,

~edit : lingual deficiency

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Walker described what I posted as "descartian rubbish," and then, as far as I can tell, went ahead and said over much what I had said, so that it all puzzles me. I thought I knew Descartes, but how all this is Cartesian goes over my head.

The "reality" of angels makes me wonder what is going on. Are similar things to be said about ghosts and demons and whatnot -- that they are made of physical stuff? If so it is stuff with odd properties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Th problem is that I know, using the same evidences, than an angel is as real physical and objectively existent as a chair. But you do not know this, and thus do not accpet it. There is no difference in reality, or in my mind between a real physicla angel and a real physical chair and thus there is no differnce in the way i can view them objectively, identify them and catalogue them.

There is no difference in how i can interact with them physically. It is this which you and others do not accept You keep believing that angels are some form of inner mental construct rather than external physical entities like chairs. WE must all use the same evidences proofs and logics to establish every piece of our reality. No more; no less.

An angel is no more extraordinary than a chair in my world and has the same objective proofs for its existence as a chair does.. I dont think i sit on a chair and i dont think i have an angel friend.

An angel is a physical entity capable of being seen by others, heard by others, and physically interacting with me, others, and the environment. That is just the way it is.

I had an imaginary pet dog as a young child. I could see it and no one else could, but i knew it wasnt real, because it did not offer the objective evidences which a real independent and physical entity must offer I knew it was a construct of my mind and hence it was at my beck and call. it operated as an extension of my mind and my will. Angels dont operate like that either, they are entirely self willed self motivated highly intelligent beings with knolwedge and abilities beyond my own which they can impart to me. They have physical abilities of healing, protection, and teaching/mentoring, emanating not from within me but from within them sleves.

I am a pretty cluey bloke but I dont possess super powers Those abilities come via external entities If you dont want to call these entities angels call them aliens. I dont care because that is what they actually are. For some peole having an alien as a protector sounds more rational than having an angel because it eliminates any religious aspect.

There is no religion in my conection to god and angels, and no belief. The relationship is like that between me and my dog but where I am more like the dog and god is more like me. It is a mutually beneficial sort of symbiotic connection, which involves physical and metaphysicla aspects. (As does my relationship with my dog) God, for me, is not a religious figure, precisely because he is real. He is a mate, a father and brother figure, a mentor and a protector. I never worshipped my physical father but i loved, honoured, respcted him, and listened to and learned from him. I have the same relationship with the entity I call god.

You CAN NOT have that sort of relationship with your own mental constructs.

In very simple terms, if you can accept that a chair I can see and can be seen by others has objective existence, then it is illogical and irrational to not accept that an angel I can see, touch, hear, etc and can be seen by others, does not have the same objective existence. Only you can know why you require two different criteria for acceptance of my observational accuracy and that of others..

MW the premise of your argument is false, angels do not have a physical reality(if they did they would be able to be verified by valid means) therefore, your conclusion does not follow.

You are asking me to accept your angel has a physical reality based on your observational accuracy.

I accept that your angel has a subjective reality based on your world view. Not religious per say, but that you believe that you have an angel pal and you believe this is possible. It is very possible to think that things are real, people believe in all kinds of things. What ever works for you, go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am only familiar with four conserved quantities -- mass/energy, electric/charm charge, momentum and angular momentum. Anyone want to fill me in on the other two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Walker described what I posted as "descartian rubbish," and then, as far as I can tell, went ahead and said over much what I had said, so that it all puzzles me. I thought I knew Descartes, but how all this is Cartesian goes over my head.

The "reality" of angels makes me wonder what is going on. Are similar things to be said about ghosts and demons and whatnot -- that they are made of physical stuff? If so it is stuff with odd properties.

I wouldn't take it personal FM, MW has critiques for the majority of mathematician's and philosophers,so with that being said you are in good company- Descartes is alive and well in academia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am only familiar with four conserved quantities -- mass/energy, electric/charm charge, momentum and angular momentum. Anyone want to fill me in on the other two?

Conservation of charge

Conservation of momentum

Conservation of mass/energy

Conservation of angular momentum

Conservation of baryons

Conservation of leptons

http://quarknet.fnal.gov/toolkits/new/conservation.html#mass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'reality' of our common existential 'reality' is a set of pre programmed labels/values ingrained in all societies by common language and communication.

It is merely a set with props that is decidedly more popular or availability.

A chair is an illusion of itself but is a constructed illusion made useful to our needs and our comfort.

Humans can sit quite comfortably on the ground, but the idea of the chair was adapted into reality where it never existed before, as what a chair is supposed to be thus weaving its existence into the fabric of other entrenched ideas of previous generations making it a 'part' of reality.

Reality doesn't come in parts .... as far I myself is seeing it now.

here

everything is conserved ... nothing was ever lost .... from then till then till when

the 'chair' is meaningless without us and would never have existed without us,

~edit : lingual deficiency

How is the ground different, in its objective physical independent and solid reality, from a chair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the ground different, in its objective physical independent and solid reality, from a chair?

define ground and you define the difference.

As it is 'ground' means nothing, regardless of our awareness or not, we could all die off the next minute but the ground is still what it ever was.

When we define 'the ground' we by applying our logic of reality , land , property, worth. value, ownership, borders ..... every one as solid as ideas and as independent but illusions nonetheless.

THe chair was never was, it is molded plastic, metal or wood shaped into a form we know as a 'chair'

Without us there would not be anything such as a chair, if we never endeared to the idea of chairs, we will just be sitting on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Walker described what I posted as "descartian rubbish," and then, as far as I can tell, went ahead and said over much what I had said, so that it all puzzles me. I thought I knew Descartes, but how all this is Cartesian goes over my head.

The "reality" of angels makes me wonder what is going on. Are similar things to be said about ghosts and demons and whatnot -- that they are made of physical stuff? If so it is stuff with odd properties.

Descartes philosophical viewpoint was that the only true thing we can be certain of existing is our "I". That is, the fact that we are conscious of self gives validity to the existence of self. To him all other things could not be proven to be real or hold objective indpendent existence Hence the summation, "I think, ergo I am"

As we have come to understnad evolution, human sapience and neurology etc. this pov has become a dangerous dead end as well as invallid A truer statement is "I am, ergo I can think," and then understand how and why and what we are, and how we came to be. Consciousnes is now demonstrably proven to be an evolved organic property of human biology, and our long evolutionary history, within a very real physical world.

To disbeleve this connection one has to be a form of creationist and believe consciousness spontaneously created itself and then all things around it. External reality came first, and consciousness a distant second. Hence all external reality exists indpendent of human level consciousness and thought. You can even take away a humans consciousness and their material body reamins real.

There are three potential view points First that of descartes. Second that of a newtonian reality, and third a form of quantum reality

The second two both recognise the external and objective existence of physical things beyond our mind, they just differ on how we can understand, interpret, and interact with that reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to that question is right in front of our eyes. Look to nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MW the premise of your argument is false, angels do not have a physical reality(if they did they would be able to be verified by valid means) therefore, your conclusion does not follow.

You are asking me to accept your angel has a physical reality based on your observational accuracy.

I accept that your angel has a subjective reality based on your world view. Not religious per say, but that you believe that you have an angel pal and you believe this is possible. It is very possible to think that things are real, people believe in all kinds of things. What ever works for you, go for it.

You see you are working on a mistaken premise. Angels do have physical reality and can indeed be proven to be real using the same techniques as we prove a chair or any other object to be real.

It is your construct of what an angel is that is flawed, perhaps because you have not as yet encountered such a physical entity.. You continue, perhaps kindlyand well meaningly, to insult my intelligence and rationality, if you think this is some kind of imaginary inner construct. You may think you are making a generous concession, but it is simply wrong to assume something like that. Angels have the same physical and independent existence as you and I do.

Now, prove to me beyond doubt that you exist, using convincing transferrable evidences that I cannot dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

define ground and you define the difference.

As it is 'ground' means nothing, regardless of our awareness or not, we could all die off the next minute but the ground is still what it ever was.

When we define 'the ground' we by applying our logic of reality , land , property, worth. value, ownership, borders ..... every one as solid as ideas and as independent but illusions nonetheless.

THe chair was never was, it is molded plastic, metal or wood shaped into a form we know as a 'chair'

Without us there would not be anything such as a chair, if we never endeared to the idea of chairs, we will just be sitting on the ground.

The answer is, there is no physical difference. Either every thing is real, or everything is merely a perception of reality. The chair is molded via our mind's imagination/creativity, abilty to extrapolate, etc., and our hand's manipulation, but it has no less inherent reality than the earth, which is molded by natural process of geology. The ground is no more, nor less, solid or immutable than the chair.

Ground and Chair are both just english names for an entity, but naming something neither gives something reality nor detracts from its reality. It is just what humans do as part of their thought process, and abilty to communicate concepts, ideas and physical things, with language. I can not only teach you the name of a chair but show you how to build one.

I can teach you what the ground is; its soil formation its rock types and their formation and geologic history. I can discuss different ways soil form under different conditions and talk about the weathering and erosion of the earth. I can tell you the differnt ages of rocks continents and soils. None of that alters their nature, or their reality. Nor does it do so for a human construct like a chair, or a stone pyramid, or a flint knife

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see you are working on a mistaken premise. Angels do have physical reality and can indeed be proven to be real using the same techniques as we prove a chair or any other object to be real.

It is your construct of what an angel is that is flawed, perhaps because you have not as yet encountered such a physical entity.. You continue, perhaps kindlyand well meaningly, to insult my intelligence and rationality, if you think this is some kind of imaginary inner construct. You may think you are making a generous concession, but it is simply wrong to assume something like that. Angels have the same physical and independent existence as you and I do.

Now, prove to me beyond doubt that you exist, using convincing transferrable evidences that I cannot dispute.

Yes, we could use the same things to evidence angels if they had a physical reality, but they do not.

Your premise is based on an assumption (that angels have physical reality)-- that is the aspect that is false for me.

I am sorry that you find questioning and exploring your positions( or my positions) as an insult to your intelligence and rationality; this is not my intent. I see this as an opportunity to challenge my perspective, to refine my positions, to keep a growth mindset. In this situation where we have never spoken, I can see how easy it could be to misinterpret my intents. My intents are simply to look at your position and challenge the aspects of your argument that do not seem clear for me and vice versa and I must say you do get me thinking. This is not personal to you in any way. Please be assured there is no malice on my end. If there is anything I can do to frame my posts in a more neutral fashion, please let me know.

Edited by Sherapy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see you are working on a mistaken premise. Angels do have physical reality and can indeed be proven to be real using the same techniques as we prove a chair or any other object to be real.

If that is the case, then why can I not scientifically analyse an angel in the same way as I can analyse a chair or a wall or a dog? I can use scientific techniques to study these things, their composition, anatomy, social organisation. I can dissect the corpse of a dog or observe it's social interaction in a herd-mentality, I can take a carbon sample from a chair, I can take a scrape of mortar from a brick wall. If, as you say, angels can "indeed be proven to be real using the same techniques" as we prove these things, then why can't I do it with angels?

Now, prove to me beyond doubt that you exist, using convincing transferrable evidences that I cannot dispute.

If you were to take a plane trip to Sydney, you could visit me at my house, bring a microscope from your school and analyse a tissue sample of me. You could interview me, examine my family lineage. We could get an X-ray and I'm sure with Dr Brennan's (Bones) help you could decide that I am a Caucasian male in my early-mid 30's with Hypoplastic Sinuses. You could conceivably do any other scientific test you wish to perform on me.

This is, of course, entirely hypothetical. I know you aren't going to come to Sydney to analyse me, anymore than I'm going to go to WA to submit myself to analysis. But the fact remains that if you were determined, you could do these things. How can I go and study an angel? The only way I can do that is to wait and hope that one presents itself to me as it has to you. I can't find an angel colony to study, I can't go to an angel's house and take a tissue sample. I can't interview one and ask about its experiences in the heavenly realm. I can't X-ray one to find out its physiology. No matter how much I want to do these things, I can only wait and hope I see one.

Surely you can see the difference in objectively proving I exist (or Sherapy, or whoever else you ask this question of) compared to proving an angel exists. Contrary to assertion, you cannot use the same tools to analyse the existence of an angel as you can to analyse the existence of a person or a chair or a dog.

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Descartes tried to deduce the existence of "others" and of God from the certainty (he said) of "I." Few think he succeeded, but he did not stop with just "I."

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Descartes was a heartless b*****d, though.

In present day discussions on the practice of animal vivisection, it is normal to consider Descartes as an advocate of this practice, as a result of his dualistic philosophy. Some of the sources say that Descartes denied the animals could feel pain, and therefore could be used without concern.[31] Other sources consider that Descartes denied that animal had reason or intelligence, but did not lack sensations or perceptions, but these could be explained mechanistically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that God created mankind separately "in his image" and breathed into him life (later read as giving him a soul) is what leads to this sort of absurdity -- that animals don't have souls and therefore aren't sentient. Voltair's description of the public vivisection of a dog, the surgeon all the time saying that the animal doesn't feel pain, put this to proper ridicule.

There is a lot of mischief in Genesis, and perhaps this is one of the worst, along with the notion that we were given hegemony over the animals. Yes, we do have a good deal of hegemony, but we were not given it, we have taken it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.