There is no meaning to life

[doberso]

Why do we have to justify our lives to anyone when we can just live them instead?

[Terrapin Station]

There is no meaning to life other than what you create for yourself.

Exactly.

[psyreporter]

There is no meaning to life other than what you create for yourself.

Exactly.

What would be the result of that idea? Would it be good for humanity?

Man cannot know the intrinsic value of what he cannot know beforehand, which may explain why it can be difficult to formulate a reason why, for example, the consciousness of an animal has a value beyond what a human can 'see'.

Humans (in general) seem to have difficulty to formulate a reason why respect for nature is vital, with as an extreme example a reason why it matters when (millions) of animal(s) become extinct. Terrapin Station argued in a topic about the mass-extinction of insects in 2020 that it doesn't matter when some animals, such as the mosquito, are wiped out from earth. A scientist on a forum from a University in Britain argued the same for several other insects.

Is the value that the human can 'see' all there is to be considered when it concerns a plant, insect or animal? Can empirical science be a guiding principle for life (human progress)?

[Terrapin Station]

So in this thread, viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16643, you had written, "If declines continue at this pace, many insect species could vanish forever within a few decades."

I somewhat tongue in cheek responded, "Please let that include mosquitoes and roaches. And can't we just do it now instead of having to wait a few decades?"

You, responding in a "We'll have no humor here" manner, said, "how can you be certain that those insects are not vital in an unforeseeable way?"

I responded, "I'm willing to take a chance when it comes to some critters."

In other words, one can't at all be certain. So re the notion that "Terrapin Station argued in a topic about the mass-extinction of insects in 2020 that it doesn't matter when some animals, such as the mosquito, are wiped out from earth." No. I didn't at all argue that it would have no impact. I made a jokey response--though a joke with some truth to it, because I can't stand mosquitoes and roaches (and mice/rats, for that matter), and then I said, again in a way that was half jokey, that I was "willing to take a chance" re the unforseen consequences.

[Sy Borg]

Why do we have to justify our lives to anyone when we can just live them instead?

It depends on one's pain and one's pain threshold. If life is awful, then it's only natural to question whether it's worth it, or worth anything.

I never cared for the "you make your own meaning" line. That's not making your own meaning, that's dithering around in a play pen with attitude. It's akin to saying that the meaning of life is a full belly or successful mating, bonding and reproduction.

Humans are not equipped to understand what it going on in the big picture. We exist on the surface of a relative mote of dust lost in what appears to us to be the chaotic maelstrom of the cosmos. We are akin to chimps trying to understand a computer (or most humans, when it comes to it). In seeking the meaning of life we are like children trying to understand superannuation (or most adults, when it comes to it). We are like plankton trying to make sense of the ocean.

So we say there's no meaning. Or that we make our own. Or that the deity of their culture creates meaning. These are not serious positions, just placeholders for a fledgling intelligent species yet to appreciate the extent of its limitations.

[psyreporter]

So in this thread, viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16643, you had written, "If declines continue at this pace, many insect species could vanish forever within a few decades."

I somewhat tongue in cheek responded, "Please let that include mosquitoes and roaches. And can't we just do it now instead of having to wait a few decades?"

You, responding in a "We'll have no humor here" manner, said, "how can you be certain that those insects are not vital in an unforeseeable way?"

I responded, "I'm willing to take a chance when it comes to some critters."

In other words, one can't at all be certain. So re the notion that "Terrapin Station argued in a topic about the mass-extinction of insects in 2020 that it doesn't matter when some animals, such as the mosquito, are wiped out from earth." No. I didn't at all argue that it would have no impact. I made a jokey response--though a joke with some truth to it, because I can't stand mosquitoes and roaches (and mice/rats, for that matter), and then I said, again in a way that was half jokey, that I was "willing to take a chance" re the unforseen consequences.

Considering that your post was placed on a philosophy forum, your message is assumed to hold weight beyond your mere personal opinion.

Many people have a similar perspective, which includes scientists, who are also open about it. It is why I addressed your reply as if you advocated to wipe out the mosquito specie (because your argument would not advocate to prevent it and the topic's subject was about insects being driven to extinction).

The origin of the perspective appears to be the idea that what the human can 'see' is all there is to be considered and that perspective is increasingly skewed towards a corporate perspective (e.g. 'generating money').

Is there no meaning to life other than what one creates for him/her-self? And would a corporate perspective equally apply?

The perspective would imply that there would be no meaning to life other than what would be determined after creation has taken place, i.e. what can be considered valuable after it has been created. How could such a retro-perspective be the meaning of life?

Logically, when one considers value (i.e. what one makes of life) as the meaning or purpose of life on a fundamental level, it results in corruption. It would result in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.

Humans are naturally equipped with a moral compass that enables them to create wisely. But when one considers the issue from a philosophical perspective, diverting the meaning of life to 'creation by humans' would essentially be accepting magical thinking as a ground for conclusive reason (namely: the answer to the question "what is the meaning of life?"). On individual human level there may be no problem but when the idea would be extrapolated to a corporate perspective it might result in potential catastrophic flaws in human evolution which is why it may be essential that philosophy addresses the issue on a fundamental level.

What is the meaning of creating anything in life? Value (what one created) cannot be the answer.

[Terrapin Station]

Considering that your post was placed on a philosophy forum, your message is assumed to hold weight beyond your mere personal opinion.

When people make any sort of value statement (so including ethics and aesthetics), when they talk about political preferences, etc., they're stating personal opinions. There's no way around that. So a lot of what we talk about here is necessarily personal opinion.

Is there no meaning to life other than what one creates for him/her-self? And would a corporate perspective equally apply?

The perspective would imply that there would be no meaning to life other than what would be determined after creation has taken place, i.e. what can be considered valuable after it has been created. How could such a retro-perspective be the meaning of life?

??? Not sure what you're saying in detail there, but values are ways that individuals feel about various things. They're preferences that individuals have. Value doesn't exist outside of dispositions that individuals have, because of how an individual's brain works.

Seriously, the $h|^ that some folks believe here, and after it's been explained so many times . . .

[Sy Borg]

... values are ways that individuals feel about various things. They're preferences that individuals have. Value doesn't exist outside of dispositions that individuals have, because of how an individual's brain works.

Seriously, the $h|^ that some folks believe here, and after it's been explained so many times . . . :roll:

Yes, and the most ridiculous is the idea that human lives are meaningful, purely due to the meaning we give it. That is a sweet fiction. The idea that human lives are any more meaningful than, say, a bear's is simply a reassuring lie that runs rife in a species that sees itself as the end point of evolution, rather than a transitional form. We cannot imagine being superseded, even as the process is in train.

I expect that chimps didn't think that H. sapiens would out-compete them so utterly, or that within mere thousands of years that that other ape would dominate the planet and wipe out almost all others. The situation is about the same.

[evolution]

There is no meaning to life other than what you create for yourself.

Exactly.

It could also be said that there is also no meaning to ANY other word, as well, than what you create for yourself.

The meaning, therefore, to EVERY word is just thee one that you create for yourself.

[evolution]

Exactly.

What would be the result of that idea? Would it be good for humanity?

Man cannot know the intrinsic value of what he cannot know beforehand, which may explain why it can be difficult to formulate a reason why, for example, the consciousness of an animal has a value beyond what a human can 'see'.

And this consciousness of an animal has value includes the human animal remember. That is; although human beings, in a sense, cannot know the intrinsic value of what they are YET to discover or learn and know, they therefore cannot CONSCIOUSLY know the intrinsic value that is within them. They, however, as I have been saying, ALREADY UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOW thee intrinsic value within ALL animal beings. That is; What is ACTUALLY Right and Wrong in Life is ALREADY KNOWN, deep within the human being, but which is just UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN, by most of the human beings, in the days of when this was written.

Also, KNOWING, consciously, and thus being able formulate the VERY reason WHY the ACTUAL True VALUE exists, as well as EXPLAINING HOW IT can be found, and SEEN.

Humans (in general) seem to have difficulty to formulate a reason why respect for nature is vital, with as an extreme example a reason why it matters when (millions) of animal(s) become extinct. @Terrapin Station argued in a topic about the mass-extinction of insects in 2020 that it doesn't matter when some animals, such as the mosquito, are wiped out from earth. A scientist on a forum from a University in Britain argued the same for several other insects.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED the VERY REASON for WHY Nature, Itself, exists.

Is the value that the human can 'see' all there is to be considered when it concerns a plant, insect or animal? Can empirical science be a guiding principle for life (human progress)?

[evolution]

Why do we have to justify our lives to anyone when we can just live them instead?

It depends on one's pain and one's pain threshold. If life is awful, then it's only natural to question whether it's worth it, or worth anything.

But what is this, "Life is awful" statement/judgement judge on and from EXACTLY?

I never cared for the "you make your own meaning" line. That's not making your own meaning, that's dithering around in a play pen with attitude.

Although I agree that the "you make your own meaning" line is just ANOTHER way of ignoring or refusing to LOOK AT thee ACTUAL Truth of things, what is this "dithering around in a play pen with attitude"?

Is it the 'meaning', which 'you' have made, for those who 'live' a particular way?

It could be argued that this, itself, is just another example of one making their own meaning.

It's akin to saying that the meaning of life is a full belly or successful mating, bonding and reproduction.

Humans are not equipped to understand what it going on in the big picture.

Now what are you basing this JUDGMENT on, EXACTLY?

Do you have ANY thing else besides; just 'that' what 'you', "yourself" have observed AND experienced?

If yes, then will you tell us what that is/they are?

We exist on the surface of a relative mote of dust lost in what appears to us to be the chaotic maelstrom of the cosmos.

What appears to 'you' is NOT necessarily what appears to 'me'. So, either what 'you' say here applies to ALL of 'us', which OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT include 'me', or what you say is NOT correct.

We are akin to chimps trying to understand a computer (or most humans, when it comes to it). In seeking the meaning of life we are like children trying to understand superannuation (or most adults, when it comes to it). We are like plankton trying to make sense of the ocean.

And 'we', human beings are, collectively, an ALWAYS EVOLVING Truly INTELLIGENT creature, and we ALL, individually, begin with this INTELLIGENCE. So, with the Right KNOWLEDGE and Right KNOW-HOW what 'you', individually are 'trying to' suggest and claim is IMPOSSIBLE for an evolving creature can ALREADY been PROVEN WRONG, in the days of when this is being written.

So we say there's no meaning. Or that we make our own. Or that the deity of their culture creates meaning. These are not serious positions, just placeholders for a fledgling intelligent species yet to appreciate the extent of its limitations.

Is there REALLY a 'limitation' to and for an species with INTELLIGENCE, and which is ALWAYS constantly EVOLVING?

The meaning of ANY thing is what IS agreed upon and accepted, either by; one, some, few or many, or ALL.

What the ACTUALLY 'meaning of Life' is just 'that' what ALL could agree with AND accept.

What the actual meaning of 'Life' IS, which EVERY one could agree with and accept, is just about one of the most SIMPLEST and EASIEST things for most adult human beings to FIND, LEARN, and KNOW, in Life.

And from there the purpose of and for human beings can start to be DISCOVERED, LEARNED and KNOWN, as well.

But this can only happen for those who have 'evolved' enough or who 'have been' prepared and thus are 'ready', to discover, or learn and know.

[evolution]

So in this thread, viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16643, you had written, "If declines continue at this pace, many insect species could vanish forever within a few decades."

I somewhat tongue in cheek responded, "Please let that include mosquitoes and roaches. And can't we just do it now instead of having to wait a few decades?"

You, responding in a "We'll have no humor here" manner, said, "how can you be certain that those insects are not vital in an unforeseeable way?"

I responded, "I'm willing to take a chance when it comes to some critters."

In other words, one can't at all be certain. So re the notion that "Terrapin Station argued in a topic about the mass-extinction of insects in 2020 that it doesn't matter when some animals, such as the mosquito, are wiped out from earth." No. I didn't at all argue that it would have no impact. I made a jokey response--though a joke with some truth to it, because I can't stand mosquitoes and roaches (and mice/rats, for that matter), and then I said, again in a way that was half jokey, that I was "willing to take a chance" re the unforseen consequences.

Considering that your post was placed on a philosophy forum, your message is assumed to hold weight beyond your mere personal opinion.

I agree that because this is a philosophy forum, then 'tongue in cheek' remarks or saying that it was just a "tongue in cheek" remark is just a way to put forward a position, which carries NO real weight at all.

Also, to 'me', humor is a very NECESSARY part of living a GOOD and PROPER life, although from the way I speak in here one would NEVER realize this. But this is because for the sole reason that this is a philosophy forum and because Truth and what is Right are a huge part of philosophy discussions, then I suggest let us FIRST, be serious for once, and find out, through logical reasoning (philosophically speaking discussions) what IS ACTUALLY True and Right in Life, which ends up resolving ALL of human beings made created 'problems' in Life, and then we can move on to just ENJOYING and having a Truly GOOD time laughing and living the way that Life was and is meant to be lived.

But FIRST things FIRST.

Many people have a similar perspective, which includes scientists, who are also open about it. It is why I addressed your reply as if you advocated to wipe out the mosquito specie (because your argument would not advocate to prevent it and the topic's subject was about insects being driven to extinction).

Most adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, seem to have forgotten that it was because of ALL of the 'things' prior to them, each individually AND collectively, coming into Existence is WHY they, themselves, ACTUALLY exist.

This includes the insects and, so called, "pests" and all of the, so called, catastrophes, storms, floods, et cetera. If Everything was NOT how it EXACTLY was before each one's mother and father came together, then they would not have come together and 'you', ANY one of 'us', would NOT be here discussing 'things', within a philosophy forum.

Oh, and by the way, the True PESTS on this planet Earth are adult human beings and NOTHING else. The very fact that ANY one of 'you', in the human beings species, wants to wipe out ANY 'other' species, just because they, individually, 'annoy' 'you' just SHOWS and REVEALS how much of a PEST this human being species has become.

The origin of the perspective appears to be the idea that what the human can 'see' is all there is to be considered and that perspective is increasingly skewed towards a corporate perspective (e.g. 'generating money').

Ask most adult human beings just how important, the completely unnecessary thing called "money" is , and just SEE the response you get.

Is there no meaning to life other than what one creates for him/her-self? And would a corporate perspective equally apply?

A corporate perspective, OF COURSE, would SKEW and DISTORT completely what thee True meaning of Life IS. Businesses and corporations only exist because of money, and it is the love of money, which adult human beings have, which are the very things that are in STARK CONTRAST of the True meaning of Life, Itself.

The True or ACTUAL meaning of Life is the One that we could ALL agree with AND accept. This is PROVEN even stronger by the VERY FACT that the meaning of Life IS the one that we make for ourselves.

That is; If 'we' ALL have made the EXACT SAME one, then there is NO one to say that that is not right.

The perspective would imply that there would be no meaning to life other than what would be determined after creation has taken place, i.e. what can be considered valuable after it has been created. How could such a retro-perspective be the meaning of life?

And, it is ONLY when 'we' are ALL LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' from One True perspective WHERE we WILL SEE and UNDERSTAND that what is Truly VALUABLE was ALREADY UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN with us ALL, and which has been HERE, forever. This is WHY 'valuing' has been an integral part of being a human being and WHERE this internal KNOWING has come from.

Logically, when one considers value (i.e. what one makes of life) as the meaning or purpose of life on a fundamental level, it results in corruption. It would result in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.

Humans are naturally equipped with a moral compass that enables them to create wisely.

VERY, VERY True.

But when one considers the issue from a philosophical perspective, diverting the meaning of life to 'creation by humans' would essentially be accepting magical thinking as a ground for conclusive reason (namely: the answer to the question "what is the meaning of life?").

But, the Truth IS human beings and ONLY human beings make up and thus create the words they use, and the definitions and thus the meanings for those words that they use. So, what 'it' is human beings create, which is what is important here.

Though what human beings create comes from either:
Their conscious knowledge, which has come from what they have learned, "money is important", for example, learned knowledge, which has come from what they have observed and/or experienced previously. Or,

Their internal KNOWING, which is still unconscious to most, from what they instinctively JUST KNOW is True and Right, 'do onto others what one wants done unto them, for example, JUST KNOWN knowledge, which has come from an eternal guiding source.

Is another matter.

Human beings can and do create from BOTH perspectives. Unfortunately though, in the days of when this is being written, ALL adult human beings 'create' mostly from the former knowledge and perspective.

On individual human level there may be no problem but when the idea would be extrapolated to a corporate perspective it might result in potential catastrophic flaws in human evolution which is why it may be essential that philosophy addresses the issue on a fundamental level.

What is the meaning of creating anything in life? Value (what one created) cannot be the answer.

Life is programmed for the good or well-being of and for itself. So, the meaning of creating ANY thing in Life, from the human being perspective, is to create that which is for the good or well-being of its self.

See, there is an ACTUAL REASON WHY human beings are creating a 'world' and 'life', which is obviously leading to a demise of itself and themselves. This is because of the very nature of just HOW human beings BEST learn and understand. This, collective, demise is necessary due to the way that human beings, themselves, learn.

So, the reason human beings are creating 'things', which is at the moment, of when this is being written, is leading to their own collective demise is so that they can learn in the best way how to create 'that', what 'it' is that we ALL want, and which we will eventually create for ourselves.

[evolution]

Considering that your post was placed on a philosophy forum, your message is assumed to hold weight beyond your mere personal opinion.

When people make any sort of value statement (so including ethics and aesthetics), when they talk about political preferences, etc., they're stating personal opinions. There's no way around that. So a lot of what we talk about here is necessarily personal opinion.

Is there no meaning to life other than what one creates for him/her-self? And would a corporate perspective equally apply?

The perspective would imply that there would be no meaning to life other than what would be determined after creation has taken place, i.e. what can be considered valuable after it has been created. How could such a retro-perspective be the meaning of life?

??? Not sure what you're saying in detail there, but values are ways that individuals feel about various things. They're preferences that individuals have. Value doesn't exist outside of dispositions that individuals have, because of how an individual's brain works.

Seriously, the $h|^ that some folks believe here, and after it's been explained so many times . . .

And the fact that some individuals actually BELIEVE that their OWN personal opinions override "others", and that they can NOT accept that OWN personal opinions are NOT as True and Right as they BELIEVE they are, is humorous to watch and OBSERVE here.

For example, values are NOT necessarily what 'you' say they are here. OF COURSE, 'values' are preferences individuals have, but thinking "others" do NOT agree with and accept this makes some human beings laugh and roll their eyes.

When, and if, you discover or learn and KNOW how the Mind ACTUALLY works, then you will UNDERSTAND HOW ALL human brains ACTUALLY work AS WELL, which includes that one, and thus will also UNDERSTAND WHY that one is so JUDGMENTAL of "others". For the very thing that 'you' accuse "others" of doing here, and roll those eyes at, 'you' do ALSO.

As for some of what you BELIEVE also, by the way, some find VERY UNBELIEVABLE, as well.

[evolution]

... values are ways that individuals feel about various things. They're preferences that individuals have. Value doesn't exist outside of dispositions that individuals have, because of how an individual's brain works.

Seriously, the $h|^ that some folks believe here, and after it's been explained so many times . . .

Yes, and the most ridiculous is the idea that human lives are meaningful, purely due to the meaning we give it.

ALL lives are NOT necessary meaningful nor meaningless due to the meaning human beings, themselves, put on them. But, there is the fact that it is only human beings who put and place, or do NOT put or place, meaning on ALL things.

NOW, human beings will keep doing this putting and placing meaning on 'things' until they, or a following species with they evolve into, gets in Right. In evolutionary and universal terms this will all happen "in the blink of eye", as some say.

The fact that human beings will create meaning, and will keep making WRONG assumptions countless of times until their meaning fits PERFECTLY with Everything/thee absolute Truth, is, in a sense, "meaningless", as this is EXACTLY how things are MEANT TO BE.

When human beings learn how to LOOK AT and SEE things properly AND correctly, or in other words 'finally get it right', then they will HAVE and KNOW thee True meaning of Life/Everything/ALL 'things'.

That is a sweet fiction. The idea that human lives are any more meaningful than, say, a bear's is simply a reassuring lie that runs rife in a species that sees itself as the end point of evolution, rather than a transitional form.

Does ANY human being here, in this forum, SEE or BELIEVE that human lives are more meaningful than ANY other animals/species, then let them SHOW themselves.

We cannot imagine being superseded, even as the process is in train.

WHY do 'you', just one individual, continue to talk as though you are ACTUALLY speaking for ALL of 'us'?

And, WHY can 'you' NOT imagine being superseded?

I expect that chimps didn't think that H. sapiens would out-compete them so utterly,

How EXACTLY do you propose "H. sapiens" have ACTUALLY "out-competed so utterly", so called, "chimps"?

or that within mere thousands of years that that other ape would dominate the planet and wipe out almost all others. The situation is about the same.

[baker]

Seriously, the $h|^ that some folks believe here, and after it's been explained so many times . . .

Make a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously!