Purpose

[Apex_Predator]

“There’s no escaping reason, no evading purpose, because we both know, that without purpose there is no reason to exist. It is purpose that created us, purpose that connects us, purpose that pulls us, that guides us, that drives us, that defines us, it is purpose that binds us.” – Agent Smith

I don’t exactly agree with Agent Smith, if it were up to me I’d change this diatribe to:

You can escape reason in denial, however there is no evasion of values, because we all know that without values there are no reasons to exist. It is values that connect us, values that pull us, that guide us, that drive us, that define us, it is value that binds us.

This sounds much better, than the robotic diatribe of Agent Smith. Values have shaped our world by leading to the undeniable alteration of the human experience for all. It is the definitive force behind all human actions and as such the weight of the world is on this one simple concept; values. A value is the reason behind every single event in the history of the human race yet I find that this topic has been touched rather lightly in the field of philosophy for the most part given the massive impact values have on everything that we can have an impact on; essentially it is the core of power of the entire human race.

So with that, shouldn’t we not analyze this subject deeply? Where do our values come from? Where are they going? Why do we have them? Values seem to be innate, yet we learn new values through our experience. But these values that are learned are rooted from innate values it seems that may not have been accessed previously. But why would we say, suddenly see something new and value it? Is it within our control? We can’t necessarily explain why we may value chocolate ice cream over vanilla, it’s because our bodies find one more desirable over the other.

Values precede purpose as a result. Purpose, comes from what we value. We derive our purpose here in this world based upon what we want. This is also where we derive our morality.

[Nick_A]

“There’s no escaping reason, no evading purpose, because we both know, that without purpose there is no reason to exist. It is purpose that created us, purpose that connects us, purpose that pulls us, that guides us, that drives us, that defines us, it is purpose that binds us.” – Agent Smith

I don’t exactly agree with Agent Smith, if it were up to me I’d change this diatribe to:

You can escape reason in denial, however there is no evasion of values, because we all know that without values there are no reasons to exist. It is values that connect us, values that pull us, that guide us, that drive us, that define us, it is value that binds us.

This sounds much better, than the robotic diatribe of Agent Smith. Values have shaped our world by leading to the undeniable alteration of the human experience for all. It is the definitive force behind all human actions and as such the weight of the world is on this one simple concept; values. A value is the reason behind every single event in the history of the human race yet I find that this topic has been touched rather lightly in the field of philosophy for the most part given the massive impact values have on everything that we can have an impact on; essentially it is the core of power of the entire human race.

So with that, shouldn’t we not analyze this subject deeply? Where do our values come from? Where are they going? Why do we have them? Values seem to be innate, yet we learn new values through our experience. But these values that are learned are rooted from innate values it seems that may not have been accessed previously. But why would we say, suddenly see something new and value it? Is it within our control? We can’t necessarily explain why we may value chocolate ice cream over vanilla, it’s because our bodies find one more desirable over the other.

Values precede purpose as a result. Purpose, comes from what we value. We derive our purpose here in this world based upon what we want. This is also where we derive our morality.

As I see it, the essential question is the purpose of the universe, of life within it, and in particular human life. Without this foundation values are purely subjective and we just turn in circles. What surprises me is that even though the essential question seems so obvious, it is avoided like the plague. At least in the East, karma refers to the interactions of universal reactions suggesting a potential purpose. But in the West people are told what to believe and what to do by ignorant people and call it values which provide a purpose for living.

Sometimes in midlife a person with a family, a job, and normal responsibilities asks "why am I doing all this?" What is the objective purpose of all this. From Macbeth:

“Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Is that all there is? Consider our virtually infinite universe reacting like a giant machine. Does it make more sense to assume it has no purpose or that the human condition makes us unaware of its objective purpose and our relationship to it? We may be signifying nothing but is Man capable of becoming able to consciously signify something?

[Renee]

A purpose to exist, a purpose to life, is to maximize your pleasure, minimize your pain, and extend the pleasurable periods while minimizing the unpleasant, painful periods.

One might say this can only lead to disarray, to social chaos, to narcissistic, egotistic, cruel deeds by the powerful. I say no, that's not true. To maximize your pleasure and minimize your pain, you also need to act ethical, which is a code of behaviour patterns genetically passed down, and socially fostered. This aims at equitability, and exhausts the advantages of empathy and sympathy, which fosters social cohesion and cooperation. Social cooperation and cohesion, on the converse, increases personal life pleasure.

The problem with the theist's nominative view of atheist's behavioural codes is that the theists can't recognize the presence of genetically coded forced behaviour.

Inasmuch as atheists are apt to break this behaviour code, the theists are equally just as likely to do the same. The coded behaviour is universal; the theist code of behaviour is specific to the group; yet crime rates (as a nominative measure of sinning) are comparable among theists and atheists. This universality shows that sinning is more a breaking of a universal behaviour code, and of the two behaviour codes, only the genetically coded one is universal; therefore this is more likely to be the one true behaviour code that enforces human ethical response than the other choice, the theist one.

-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 11:26 pm to add the following --

Interestingly, what I wrote above is I believe a proper view at which Immanuel Kant was trying to get at, in his attempts to define the categorical imperative. In the subtext of what I wrote above, the meaning is that personal pleasure is maximized only via following socially conducive behavour, that is, behaving that serves the self as well as the interest of the group or tribe of society the individual is in. Serving the group as much as the self, begs for Kant's proposition: "only that new action is ethical that never lowers the interest of the self or of the others below a point which would otherwise be achieved."

[Eduk]

In your definition of values are we talking about conscious reason or unconscious emotion or both? It feels like you are talking about reason to me? I.e. I value chocolate ice cream so I will go get a chocolate ice cream. I would argue that emotion leads to action and reason leads to conclusion. But from what I have seen of the world people can happily act in direct contradiction of reason, even their own. But not in direct contradiction of their emotion.

Most people's reason to exist is to exist. People do what they need to do to survive. At least nothing more than that is needed. There does not need to be any purpose in the universe.

[Nick_A]

In your definition of values are we talking about conscious reason or unconscious emotion or both? It feels like you are talking about reason to me? I.e. I value chocolate ice cream so I will go get a chocolate ice cream. I would argue that emotion leads to action and reason leads to conclusion. But from what I have seen of the world people can happily act in direct contradiction of reason, even their own. But not in direct contradiction of their emotion.

Most people's reason to exist is to exist. People do what they need to do to survive. At least nothing more than that is needed. There does not need to be any purpose in the universe.

A very astute observation. You probably did some inner work to be so sure of what you introduced. We speak of reason but more often than not we are guided by either emotion or physical desires. So we live in opposition to ourselves. One minute we are governed by reason. On the next we are governed by emotion and soon after a physical desire becomes dominant. Since we are so divided is it any wonder that we lack the capacity for a conscious human perspective that would reveal objective human purpose?

[Eduk]

So do you believe that there has to be an objective human purpose?

[Nick_A]

So do you believe that there has to be an objective human purpose?

Yes, it seems naive to me to assume the universe, life within it, and human life in particular, lacks an objective purpose. Consider the wonderful living machine called organic life on earth for a moment. It sustains itself by eating itself and reproducing. How can anyone believe it lacks an objective purpose and it is only a meaningless accident? It seems more logical to me that the human condition has made humanity as a whole oblivious of it.

[Sy Borg]

Most of these questions are ultimately answered via two processes, one pertaining to larger dynamics and the other to internal development. There are always these twin concerns (for humans, anyway) - adjusting the environment or adjusting oneself.

On the large scale, humanity is clearly acting as facilitators of the biosphere's reproduction. The biosphere either continues the adventure of evolution on other worlds or it will be wiped out by the increasing heat of our expanding Sun (thinking far beyond current greenhouse gas issues). This is important insofar as our sympathies can extend beyond our own personal and species welfare. However, our small contributions to this (hopefully) eventual outcome are, in a sense, not important to us; this great eventual aim does not pay for accommodation or sustenance. Hence, almost no one speaks about it.

On a personal level, once a minimum standard of security has been met, the aim is to conquer suffering and achieve sustainability, both individually and collectively, and it is these imperatives that form the basis of morality.

[Eduk]

Nick_A but you didn't give a reason. Other than it's too complex? Even if you knew for a fact that the universe did have a purpose. That still wouldn't prove humans did. I personally have zero evidence of purpose. Doesn't mean there isn't and equally doesn't mean there is. But there are zero conclusions I can draw from this fact. Unless you have a testable theory to the contrary?

[Nick_A]

Nick_A but you didn't give a reason. Other than it's too complex? Even if you knew for a fact that the universe did have a purpose. That still wouldn't prove humans did. I personally have zero evidence of purpose. Doesn't mean there isn't and equally doesn't mean there is. But there are zero conclusions I can draw from this fact. Unless you have a testable theory to the contrary?

Why draw conclusions especially if we are guided by imagination as the great teachings suggest? Conclusions are what created the devolution of the essence of religion, and the secularization of philosophy. For example we cannot prove the first principle in the Kybalion.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/kyb/kyb04.htm

1. The Principle of Mentalism

"THE ALL IS MIND; The Universe is Mental."--The Kybalion.

Is there any reason to blindly believe this? No, but it can be open to contemplation. If the ALL is MIND, it would hard to believe its expression into matter has no purpose. Why bother? Some are open to contemplation but most either blindly believe or blindly deny. Then conclusions are drawn and the truth of the matter is lost to superficiality. I'm not being critical. I've just learned by experience that these kinds of questions become dominated by emotions and just lead to superficial arguments. The question of universal purpose requires becoming open to certain universal principles and the laws of universal existence. It is been my experience that people as a whole are not open but prefer to either emotionally blindly believe or blindly deny.

Einstein discovered relativity not by arguing but by intuitive contemplation. He had an open mind which made him capable of this quality of reason. Be honest; how many do you know who are willing to sacrifice pleasure in the cause of truth? If such people are rare, is it really surprising that universal purpose including objective human purpose seems ridiculous to so many?

[Eduk]

It's fine to contemplate, I never said otherwise. All I said was that you need a testable theory at the end in order to express that contemplation. Einstein pretty famously managed to come up with testable theories. Of course I'm sure that not everything Einstein contemplated resulted in a theory, this doesn't mean that contemplation was wasted, it's just part of the process.
I don't want to get caught up in semantics but what is arguing? If you think of arguing as angrily and loudly disagreeing with someone in order to persuade onlookers of your correctness then yeah I'm not a fan of arguing. But you could say that seeing a paradox and coming up with relativity doesn't come out of a vacuum, I would assume he disliked the paradox quite a bit? Also even in theoretical thought you could be said to be arguing with yourself in a sense, after all Einstein is certainly not maintaining the status quo, his ideas were pretty radical and argued with (which as his ideas were testable he was able to prove he was right).
Also not a massive fan of the false balance of belief and disbelief both being blind and an 'open' mind being the right option. If you believe something without evidence then that is blind belief. If you don't believe something because there is no evidence then that is not blind disbelief, that is disbelief because there is no evidence. Blind disbelief would be disbelief in something which did have evidence. Having an 'open' mind is something everyone would claim they had. The scientific method simply asks for proof. If you have proof we will believe you, if not we won't. This to me is having an open mind.

[Nick_A]

Eduk, you wrote:

It's fine to contemplate, I never said otherwise. All I said was that you need a testable theory at the end in order to express that contemplation. Einstein pretty famously managed to come up with testable theories. Of course I'm sure that not everything Einstein contemplated resulted in a theory, this doesn't mean that contemplation was wasted, it's just part of the process.

Scientific evidence is limited to what the senses can experience. Is it possible to either prove or disprove the Eastern idea of karma? I don’t see how we can. People contemplate it. Is that just a waste of time or can a person personally experience a quality of proof that cannot be given to another? Is proof restricted to what all people can experience through the senses?

I don't want to get caught up in semantics but what is arguing? If you think of arguing as angrily and loudly disagreeing with someone in order to persuade onlookers of your correctness then yeah I'm not a fan of arguing. But you could say that seeing a paradox and coming up with relativity doesn't come out of a vacuum, I would assume he disliked the paradox quite a bit? Also even in theoretical thought you could be said to be arguing with yourself in a sense, after all Einstein is certainly not maintaining the status quo, his ideas were pretty radical and argued with (which as his ideas were testable he was able to prove he was right).

Arguing for me is the process of including unnecessary negative emotion into a potential discussion. When a person argues with themselves free of negative emotion I call it pondering.

I think that Einstein probably valued a paradox in much the same way Kierkegaard did. They feel that truth appears in its reconciliation:

“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.” ~ Kierkegaard

Also not a massive fan of the false balance of belief and disbelief both being blind and an 'open' mind being the right option. If you believe something without evidence then that is blind belief. If you don't believe something because there is no evidence then that is not blind disbelief, that is disbelief because there is no evidence. Blind disbelief would be disbelief in something which did have evidence. Having an 'open' mind is something everyone would claim they had. The scientific method simply asks for proof. If you have proof we will believe you, if not we won't. This to me is having an open mind.

I see a difference between disbelief and blind denial. A person can disbelieve intellectually. A person can be on the beach in the Bahamas and not believe it will snow tomorrow. Blind denial IMO must be governed by emotion which forces the inability to objectively “see.” Instead blind denial creates its own reality.

“The poison of skepticism becomes, like alcoholism, tuberculosis, and some other diseases, much more virulent in a hitherto virgin soil.” ~ Simone Weil

She is not referring to intellectual disbelief since she valued critical thinking. She is referring to emotional denial which only sees and hears what supports its opinions. This is what I’ve found to be so frustrating about discussing the God question. It becomes dominated by either blind belief or blind denial. The intellectual question of purpose must begin with a concept of a universal source. Without a source there cannot be an essential purpose. If it blindly devolves into idolatry or a demand for proof of a reality beyond the limits of our senses the question becomes impossible to rise above argument.

The question of purpose is more a question of the heart. Some in the depth of their being need to “feel” who they are why they are here. There is no scientific proof but a person still endures a virtual infinity of opinions. What are they to do? Are they to deny what is felt at the depth of their being or can they go beyond earthly sensory limitations through contemplation as understood by the ancients in order to discover what the world denies?

[Eduk]

Scientific evidence is limited to what the senses can experience. Is it possible to either prove or disprove the Eastern idea of karma? I don’t see how we can.

Ah but here is where I guess we disagree (without negative emotion I hope ). Scientifically you can say there is zero evidence and no testable theories and no mechanism. So scientifically you can say there is no Karma. You could go further and say things like extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. You could also say that Karma fits in perfectly with human psychology and while it's extraordinary in terms of scientific beliefs it's rather mundane in terms of human beliefs. Many other principles of this kind have vast similarities. Of course scientifically if someone did come up with evidence then the scientific view point would immediately change. This is one of the great things about science.
Also you can't prove a negative. No one can prove Karma doesn't exist, so it's unreasonable to demand that you do. I also think it's unreasonable to sit on the fence and say well we can't prove it exists and we can't prove it doesn't so therefore it may or may not. For example I would guess you aren't sitting on the the fence about whether Father Christmas exists, but you can't prove that he doesn't. You have zero evidence and no testable theories. Also, and this comes back to what I was talking about Karma, many things which can't be disproved or proved like religion, karma, luck, horoscopes, dowsing etc etc can be explained very reasonably. For example believing something because other people believe it is a clear fallacy but that doesn't stop that being the main reason anyone believes anything (including me).
So regarding blind denial about God. I don't believe in unicorns because there is no mechanism and no evidence while at the same time there is a lot of evidence and psychological mechanisms surrounding human stories. So I am as sure as if I let go of my pen it will fall as I am that there aren't magical unicorns. Likewise I don't believe in Santa, believe I can fly, or turn invisible when no one it watching. Similarly God has exactly the same amount of proof as Santa. Humans make up stories, this is very common, humans believe things which aren't real, this is very common. So personally I don't like to think of atheism as blind denial. Otherwise you'll need to explain why not believing in Santa is blind denial.
Also if you say you are limited to what can be measured either directly or indirectly, then yes that's true. But that is factual, you are limited to what can be measured. If your senses can't pick something up indirectly or directly then what conclusions are reasonable to draw.

[Fooloso4]

The question of purpose hinges on the choice between believing that purpose is to be discovered within some larger universal, cosmic, or divine plan versus being created by us as individuals, groups, or human beings. The problem is, of course, that whatever answers one finds in the former may be the result of the latter.

Eduk:

So with that, shouldn’t we not analyze this subject deeply? Where do our values come from? Where are they going? Why do we have them? Values seem to be innate, yet we learn new values through our experience.

Nietzsche has done this. His conclusion is not that values are not innate but that valuing is. We create values, but not valuing. He calls for a revaluation of values. For Nietzsche all valuing and all purposes are human inventions, but such inventions may be powerless unless ascribed to a higher authority. In other words, part of the invention is to make it appear as if these values are discovered rather than invented. This, according to Nietzsche, is not just a tactic used to grab power. It has its roots in benevolence, concern for the public good. The danger is nihilism - why value anything if values are just an invention? He expects that those capable of creating values know the value of values and that those who don’t should be spared the "dangerous truths" that they are not prepared to handle and so it is best that they be instructed as to what to value for their own good. He is a member of an elite club that advocate “noble lies” that includes Plato and Machiavelli (who interestingly includes Moses).

The modern crisis, according to Nietzsche, is that noble lies are no longer tolerated and yet we still do not know how to handle the dangerous truths. The challenge to the individual is to become a sovereign lawgiver unto himself, but the creation of the individual is, he says, man’s newest invention and one that has yet to become human nature. We have, in the language of Zarathustra, learned the “sacred no” but must still find our “sacred yes”. That is, the invention of our own purpose and values by which we can value our lives here and now.

[Nick_A]

Eduk. I appreciate your willingness to discuss ideas without relying on negative emotions to promote your point. It is a rarity. I’ve found that ideas are shot down by negative emotions and attacking a person or a belief system which asserts it. It makes personal contemplation and discussion useless.

A person who blindly believes has their mind made up emotionally. A person who blindly denies has their mind made up emotionally. How many are capable of discussing the God question and its extension into universal and human purpose without a reliance on either blind belief or blind denial?

A person can say why bother? Our purpose is to draw conclusions and science gives us the opportunity through scientific proofs? As I understand it contemplating the god question and the deep philosophical questions isn’t to draw and argue conclusions but rather to deepen the questions. Contemplating the ideas which relate to our eternal Source.

Two of my favorites who offer me food for thought are Simone Weil and Jacob Needleman. Simone has said the same in her own way and Prof Needleman elaborates on the idea that these contemptations are nourishment for our higher parts.


From Jacob Needleman’s book: “The heart of Philosophy.”

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

Notice he isn’t referring to conclusions or beliefs but rather the nourishment from pondering higher ideas true philosophy and the essence of religion offer.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Both Jacob Needleman and Simone Weil were young atheists who gradually felt the necessity for higher consciousness to permeate our universe. This came through a quality of contemplation which opens the mind and heart.

We are often restricted to belief, disbelief, or denial. Both Simone and Prof Needleman valued the “I don’t know” which makes impartial contemplation possible.

From Jacob Needleman’s book “The American Soul.”

Our world, so we see and hear on all sides, is drowning in materialism, commercialism, consumerism. But the problem is not really there. What we ordinarily speak of as materialism is a result, not a cause. The root of materialism is a poverty of ideas about the inner and outer world. Less and less does our contemporary culture have, or even seek, commerce with great ideas, and it is the lack that is weakening the human spirit. This is the essence of materialism. Materialism is a disease of the mind starved for ideas.

Throughout history ideas of a certain kind have been disseminated into the life of humanity in order to help human beings understand and feel the possibility of the deep inner change that would enable them to serve the purpose for which they were created, namely, to act in the world as conscious individual instruments of God, and the ultimate principle of reality and value. Ideas of this kind are formulated in order to have a specific range of action on the human psych: to touch the heart as well as the intellect; to shock us into questioning our present understanding; to point us to the greatness around us in nature and the universe, and the potential greatness slumbering within ourselves; to open our eyes to the real needs of our neighbor; to confront us with our own profound ignorance and our criminal fears and egoism; to show us that we are not here for ourselves alone, but as necessary particles of divine love.

We are losing the nourishment of contemplating both the God concept and objective human purpose and I believe people do die on the inside from trading contemplation for the enchantment of technology. I’ve noticed how the arts have become more course, more superficial, reflecting the devolution of society. Nothing good can come from this either personally or for society. Of course this will be considered insulting but the saving grace is that there is a minority in the world who value the open mind and heart and make personal efforts to become more human. They neither blindly believe or deny but rather try to feel and think facts and objective values as a unified whole. They will experience objective human purpose. I hope there will be enough of them for their influence to allow our species to survive technology.