My own view is that no general reason or purpose for human existence can be given, but that individual lives very often do have a purpose—a purpose devised or chosen by the one living the life or by those around him. However a "one size fits all" purpose does not appear possible to me, nor do I see all lives as equally meaningful with respect to a purpose.

Convince me that there is a better reason for human existence than maintaining the status-quo. Show me human existence is higher than that of ants.

Sure. Human beings are not ants. They are not all alike as ants are, but instead are individuals who work out their existence. Humans have choices, limited to be sure, but nevertheless a certain freedom is provided. Each has an opportunity to overcome the individual obstacles to their flourishing and to make use of the advantages they are given and the opportunities which come their way. They are free to learn from the past what makes for a good life, refine those lessons to meet new circumstances and apply them to their own existence. There is no pattern they are obliged to conform with, but enjoy an almost absolute freedom within their circumstances to pass on to their posterity something new and original that can help the others who come after to live better. A million years from now ants will be the same, but human civilization will have progressed.

it is conceivable that a million years from now the ants will be in control.

There are well over 10,000 species of ants and some kinds of ants have been around for over 100 million years, while modern humans are of much shorter ancestry. The difference between the evolution of humans and ants is that ants only evolve when their environment requires it. As you point out they are quite good at that.

Humans change on their own through invention and discovery and nowadays at a rather fast pace. Should we succeed in ruining the climate, you are may be quite right that some species of ants will survive and humans not. Still we are quite adaptable too and may find new ways to survive such as travel to other planets or space stations where the climate is controlled.

-- Updated April 29th, 2012, 11:40 pm to add the following --

The universe only exists because a mind perceives it

There was no universe before the existence of human beings? Or do you mean that it was perceived by God then?

ciceronianus wrote:Considering the vastness of the universe, and the possibility of other universes, it seems rather preposterous to maintain human beings have any special purpose or destiny. It doesn't follow from this that our lives have no purpose, however. More likely they have purposes, though; trying to establish a single purpose for our lives seems futile, and needless.

Exactly. The "one-size-fits-all" school of philosophy doesn't really work well even when you consider the immense variety of life stories on earth.

Windy34 wrote:

Dalehileman wrote:

If there was a purpose to human existence wouldn't everyone know what the purpose is,

Not at all Windy (forgive pun)

….especially since it might lie almost entirely within the abstract

If there was a purpose in the abstract that would be ok, but it sucks there is not a concrete purpose you can use right here right now.

Well I think at least it ought to be posted somewhere for all to see. Post Offices would be a good place, next to the sign that says you can't bring a gun in.

Dalehileman wrote:For what it’s worth Uni, not much hereabout, that is precisely my take first because the Whole Megillah seems such a hopeless, pointless, dreary exercise without the humanoid but second and mode compelling, the physical constants seem to have been “adjusted” precisely, within a fraction of one percent, to permit evolution of life

…although the mechanism by which it all comes about remains a mystery

We know, so to speak, only one kind of life and—at least right now—cannot rule out the possibility that under different conditions, another completely different form might evolve. What appears to us the only kind of universe ideally suited for life might be just one of many which accommodate other exotic forms. Life may not be a rare miracle, but actually an inevitable result under multiple sets of conditions.

We have often made the mistake of thinking our little known world is the center of all there is, but it might well be an exception with other possibilities rampant throughout the universe.

UniversalAlien wrote:To accept human existence for the mundane reasons given so far is equivalent to accepting reasons for the existence of animals and bugs.

The reason for human existence is to ascend - not to accept the petty and trite human history to date but rather to ascend past it. Not to accept a history of war and destruction, murder and mayhem, but to accept a history that transcends the old and destructive human ways and leads to a hypothetical New Dawn.

When you ask What is the reason for Human existence? the presupposition that comes with the question is that human existence must be for a purpose beyond itself, that it has meaning only in relation to some goal external to it. Certainly that is the view of the Christian religion—this life is merely a trial for another.

To think this way is to deny life a value in and of itself, to divert it from living to making progress toward some goal. There are many fine goals and much that needs to be done in the world, but not at the expense of living. Henry James has a character in The Ambassadors remark:

Live all you can; it's a mistake not to. It doesn't so much matter what you do in particular, so long as you have had your life. If you haven't had that what HAVE you had?...What one loses, one loses; make no mistake about that...The right time is ANY time that one is still so lucky as to have....Life!

James took this from a remark of the novelist William Dean Howells who visited Paris in old age and could not enjoy it as he wished because life had gone past him. That is the great danger in devotion to a purpose—you may forget to live while you can.

Unquestionably there are people who are not able to lead a balanced life for one reason or another or who choose to devote themselves to a narrow groove, forswearing all the pleasures of family life, etc. and no doubt the world benefits from their monomania, but for most it is a mistake. The most common strategic error in life as I see it is to do too little, to try too few things, to stick in a rut because it is safe or profitable.

One married couple of my acquaintance has a great deal of money—more than enough to do whatever they would like—but they don't like to travel, to see anything beyond their front door. They don't entertain, they don't go out, they have no enthusiasms or hobbies. They sit home and watch Fox news and grow angry with the world. They write e-mails to their children warning them about everything. Now they are reaching an age where they can't travel easily because of health. I think that is a very great mistake.

I like the advice of the composer Reynaldo Hahn, who said the way to live is to bring all the enthusiasm you can muster to everything you do.