Where philosophy goes from here - a possible end point?

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:

True, there's still plenty of crossover between the groups. Still, I think the tendency for the privileged will be towards ever more secularism, and any of their religions will tend to ever more resemble corporations, basically a secular edifice based more on profit than metaphysics. You may remember Nick, a theist member who has recently taken a forum break. He often railed against large organised religions that had largely abandoned the metaphysical basis on which they were founded. In that case I agreed with him.

Rowan Williams who, as former Archbishop of Canterbury, is one of the privileged wrote in this morning's Guardian that we all must accept that we are fragile, a fact that has been much overlooked in recent times but of which our ancestors were acutely aware, and of which recent events make us more aware. Rowan Williams describes how science, arts, and religion bring people together in united purpose and vision. Williams points out how the metaphysical basis of the South East Asian religions with their view the self does not exist, and the western religions with their view that there is something of God in every man ("in his image") is the same metaphysical basis.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/07/world-fragile-recover-science-art-religion-rowan-williams

[Pattern-chaser]

Still, when you think about it, the wonders and beauty of nature are not as delightful as we like to think, just as we humans are not as delightful as we like to think. Most life forms are heterotrophs, with most needing to kill and exploit other living beings to survive (scavengers are the "nicest" in that sense). Beauty tends to be experienced at a safe distance.

Yes. And yet, life is meaningless without death.

That's what everyone says, but is it true?

Yes, I think it is. It is a defining characteristic of 'life' that it has a lifetime; that it lasts so long, and no longer. Life is ephemeral. That death is the end of life simply confirms this observation. So yes, I think it's true.

[Sy Borg]

Still, when you think about it, the wonders and beauty of nature are not as delightful as we like to think, just as we humans are not as delightful as we like to think. Most life forms are heterotrophs, with most needing to kill and exploit other living beings to survive (scavengers are the "nicest" in that sense). Beauty tends to be experienced at a safe distance.

Yes. And yet, life is meaningless without death.

That's what everyone says, but is it true?

Yes, I think it is. It is a defining characteristic of 'life' that it has a lifetime; that it lasts so long, and no longer. Life is ephemeral. That death is the end of life simply confirms this observation. So yes, I think it's true.

I think it is the temporal nature of life that renders it pointless. Some chemicals wake for a while and then go back to sleep. For many, this would be a cue to speak of the joys of living in the moment, but this is just a pragmatic rationalisation to make the fact that we will all be snuffed out, most disappearing with nary a trace. Without appreciating the moments, life would be awful - just marking time until some horrible painful and uncomfortable event kills you.

Immortality brings the opportunity of endless learning, ever better understanding the nature of reality. Consider this option compared with the lives of we as we brief mammals - born into a maelstrom of confusion, flail blindly around for a while and then cark it. George Bernard Shaw suggested that humans would need to live to be three hundred in order to become mature.

[Belindi]

Still, when you think about it, the wonders and beauty of nature are not as delightful as we like to think, just as we humans are not as delightful as we like to think. Most life forms are heterotrophs, with most needing to kill and exploit other living beings to survive (scavengers are the "nicest" in that sense). Beauty tends to be experienced at a safe distance.

Yes. And yet, life is meaningless without death.

That's what everyone says, but is it true?

Yes, I think it is. It is a defining characteristic of 'life' that it has a lifetime; that it lasts so long, and no longer. Life is ephemeral. That death is the end of life simply confirms this observation. So yes, I think it's true.

I think it is the temporal nature of life that renders it pointless. Some chemicals wake for a while and then go back to sleep. For many, this would be a cue to speak of the joys of living in the moment, but this is just a pragmatic rationalisation to make the fact that we will all be snuffed out, most disappearing with nary a trace. Without appreciating the moments, life would be awful - just marking time until some horrible painful and uncomfortable event kills you.

Immortality brings the opportunity of endless learning, ever better understanding the nature of reality. Consider this option compared with the lives of we as we brief mammals - born into a maelstrom of confusion, flail blindly around for a while and then cark it. George Bernard Shaw suggested that humans would need to live to be three hundred in order to become mature.

But a term of three hundred, or three thousand, years also implies finality. Without finality we could learn nothing, as we would know it all.I'm not implying that we are placed here by God to be searchers, but that searching in the dark is what is done by life forms that can learn from experience; especially the human life form that can reflect on past and future.

[Sy Borg]

Still, when you think about it, the wonders and beauty of nature are not as delightful as we like to think, just as we humans are not as delightful as we like to think. Most life forms are heterotrophs, with most needing to kill and exploit other living beings to survive (scavengers are the "nicest" in that sense). Beauty tends to be experienced at a safe distance.

Yes. And yet, life is meaningless without death.

That's what everyone says, but is it true?

Yes, I think it is. It is a defining characteristic of 'life' that it has a lifetime; that it lasts so long, and no longer. Life is ephemeral. That death is the end of life simply confirms this observation. So yes, I think it's true.

I think it is the temporal nature of life that renders it pointless. Some chemicals wake for a while and then go back to sleep. For many, this would be a cue to speak of the joys of living in the moment, but this is just a pragmatic rationalisation to make the fact that we will all be snuffed out, most disappearing with nary a trace. Without appreciating the moments, life would be awful - just marking time until some horrible painful and uncomfortable event kills you.

Immortality brings the opportunity of endless learning, ever better understanding the nature of reality. Consider this option compared with the lives of we as we brief mammals - born into a maelstrom of confusion, flail blindly around for a while and then cark it. George Bernard Shaw suggested that humans would need to live to be three hundred in order to become mature.

But a term of three hundred, or three thousand, years also implies finality. Without finality we could learn nothing, as we would know it all.I'm not implying that we are placed here by God to be searchers, but that searching in the dark is what is done by life forms that can learn from experience; especially the human life form that can reflect on past and future.

One can never learn everything, not in a billion years. The learning would never stop, as long as curiosity remained.

[Belindi]

Yes, I think it is. It is a defining characteristic of 'life' that it has a lifetime; that it lasts so long, and no longer. Life is ephemeral. That death is the end of life simply confirms this observation. So yes, I think it's true.

I think it is the temporal nature of life that renders it pointless. Some chemicals wake for a while and then go back to sleep. For many, this would be a cue to speak of the joys of living in the moment, but this is just a pragmatic rationalisation to make the fact that we will all be snuffed out, most disappearing with nary a trace. Without appreciating the moments, life would be awful - just marking time until some horrible painful and uncomfortable event kills you.

Immortality brings the opportunity of endless learning, ever better understanding the nature of reality. Consider this option compared with the lives of we as we brief mammals - born into a maelstrom of confusion, flail blindly around for a while and then cark it. George Bernard Shaw suggested that humans would need to live to be three hundred in order to become mature.

But a term of three hundred, or three thousand, years also implies finality. Without finality we could learn nothing, as we would know it all.I'm not implying that we are placed here by God to be searchers, but that searching in the dark is what is done by life forms that can learn from experience; especially the human life form that can reflect on past and future.

One can never learn everything, not in a billion years. The learning would never stop, as long as curiosity remained.

With the possible exception of newborns who are psychologically attached to their mothers if we did not learn from experience we would perish.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think it is the temporal nature of life that renders it pointless. Some chemicals wake for a while and then go back to sleep. For many, this would be a cue to speak of the joys of living in the moment, but this is just a pragmatic rationalisation to make the fact that we will all be snuffed out, most disappearing with nary a trace. Without appreciating the moments, life would be awful - just marking time until some horrible painful and uncomfortable event kills you.

Immortality brings the opportunity of endless learning, ever better understanding the nature of reality. Consider this option compared with the lives of we as we brief mammals - born into a maelstrom of confusion, flail blindly around for a while and then cark it. George Bernard Shaw suggested that humans would need to live to be three hundred in order to become mature.

I think it is the ephemeral nature of life that renders it what it is. Whether it's pointless, or whether life has a point, is a somewhat harder question to answer.

[Sy Borg]

I think it is the temporal nature of life that renders it pointless. Some chemicals wake for a while and then go back to sleep. For many, this would be a cue to speak of the joys of living in the moment, but this is just a pragmatic rationalisation to make the fact that we will all be snuffed out, most disappearing with nary a trace. Without appreciating the moments, life would be awful - just marking time until some horrible painful and uncomfortable event kills you.

Immortality brings the opportunity of endless learning, ever better understanding the nature of reality. Consider this option compared with the lives of we as we brief mammals - born into a maelstrom of confusion, flail blindly around for a while and then cark it. George Bernard Shaw suggested that humans would need to live to be three hundred in order to become mature.

I think it is the ephemeral nature of life that renders it what it is. Whether it's pointless, or whether life has a point, is a somewhat harder question to answer. ;)

Yes and yes. I do find it cruel that people accumulate great amounts of knowledge - hard-won learning about themselves, the world, and how the two intersect - and then it's all gone. Lost. Completely wasted.

That is why I don't take boffins seriously when they say QM does not allow information to be destroyed. Ostensible information might be able to be destroyed but subjective information is either completely destroyed (barring the sketchy crumbs that we manage to pass on to others before we die) or there is an afterlife.