• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The meaning of life.

Big Eye said:
And you could also enjoy being with them . Joy is not the only reason to live either...
Click to expand...
Having a reason to live has nothing to do with the meaning of life.
 
d0gbreath said:
Having a reason to live has nothing to do with the meaning of life.
Click to expand...
It does because having a reason implies you have put a value on something...values are what gives life meaning. Humans put values on everything ( negative or positive)...so that is the meaning ( purpose) of our lives...we all do it , we can’t avoid it.
 
Big Eye said:
It does because having a reason implies you have put a value on something...values are what gives life meaning. Humans put values on everything ( negative or positive)...so that is the meaning ( purpose) of our lives...we all do it , we can’t avoid it.
Click to expand...
What values did an unfortunate infant succumbing to SIDS put upon it's life?
 
d0gbreath said:
What values did an unfortunate infant succumbing to SIDS put upon it's life?
Click to expand...
The meaning of life is simply valuing things...so getting a breath of air has value to the one that takes it. Hold your breath for a long time if you hold a low opinion of air lol.
 
vegas giants said:
As china takes over the world I guess it will be because they have better values
Click to expand...

China is going to hit the same wall that all the other developing countries hit: the innovation challenge.

The reason so many developing nations grow so fast initially is because they import all their technology. They begin to benefit from science and technology that has been growing for over 2 centuries in a matter of a short decade or two. You bring in tractors to the farm fields, and all of a sudden your productivity goes through the roof. You bring in some computers and fax machines to the office, and your productivity goes through the roof. You start building roads and airports and people start being able to drive cars and trucks and fly and your productivity goes through the roof. Their national economy can grow at 10-15% annual rates for a long time. It going to look like they are on fire and will soon catch up and surpass all those developing nations which are only growing at the snail's pace of 2-4%.

But once they are developed and on a par with all those other developed countries, they hit a wall: to grow any further, they are going to need to innovate: scientific advancement, new technologies, etc... These countries begin to realize how difficult it is to come up with new science and technology once you are at the vanguard. And that's when the economy hits a wall and the growth rates slow dramatically. This is exactly what has happened with numerous developing nations: from Japan and S. Korea to the former E. Germany.

I am sure China will be no different. Once their standard of living has caught up to the rest of the developed world, their growth rates are going to hit molasses like the rest of us. I wouldn't worry too much.
 
Big Eye said:
I agree to a point, but they most definitely require massive importation of raw materials to make goods. In a war situation they could be cut off from supplies very easily...even the U.K. with its hunter killer submarines could devastate Chinese trade.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/meet-britains-stealthy-hunter-killer-submarines/
Click to expand...
Current hot wars, and future hot wars, will be small scale proxy wars. We're not going to see any massive nuclear exchanges. The real war is economic and political. The Chinese do need certain raw materials, and have gone about quite successfully locking these up over the past couple decades. They own most of Australia and much of Africa now; at least their raw materials.
Politically, when the Chinese make alliances, they take good care of the ruling elite in those countries, and never interfere in how the elites treat the common citizen. They could care less about human rights, and even less about income inequality. Chinese values are very, very different from Western values.
The real threat is Chinese values dominating the planet. There is no guarantee Western values will win out. And democracy is not a sure thing.

BTW; the Chinese don't have to innovate. They simply disregard copyright, and steal whatever innovations they require. They also mandate that any company doing business in China partner with a Chinese company and open all their technology up to the Chinese partner. Innovation is worthless unless you can protect it. Just ask Thomas Edison how difficult is to protect innovations. He eventually spent most of his time on court cases. Or ask most any current high tech company how difficult it is to protect their trade secrets from the Chinese.
 
Big Eye said:
Truth is when thoughts correlate to reality.

Knowledge is our store of truths. Higher value concepts are those truths that bring greater advantage...so the Mongol hordes were not capable of beating (at least over the long term) Western civilisation because the West had greater (ie , more correctly based) values. Both scientifically and morally we were better than them.
Click to expand...

What works and what doesn't work are very pragmatic considerations. It's not about finding some ultimate truth. What works in one situation or one era does not work in another. And situations and circumstances are changing all the time. It's all very Darwinian.

In the ancient world, both in Mongolia and the west, resources were limited. The size of the pie was limited, and everyone was hungry. The only way you could get more pie was to kill your neighbor and take his share. And so people did. You were judged "great" only insofar as how well you could take other people's stuff (Genghis Khan, Julius Ceasar, Alexander "The Great", Napoleon, The British Empire, etc...). This was not just a Mongolian thing. Even a cursory review of the history of the west, from the Romans and Vikings to the two world wars, will show that. Those were the circumstances of the ancient world, and that is the kind of behavior that "worked". Those were the criteria by which success was judged.

The only reason the world has changed and is more peaceful and prosperous today is not because some supposed values of the west won out and they learned the truth better than anyone else. It's because they stumbled on to the industrial revolution. This created the modern world- where we have learned to grow the size of the pie itself. But this now requires more cooperation than competition. There is more for everyone, but only if there is some reliable law and order, peace and stability, minimization of corruption, and a fair amount of cooperation for technology, business, and trade to thrive. That is what is working now with these new developments and circumstances. This is not anything particularly western, nor closer to some ultimate truth than what existed in the past. It's just (fortunately) a better way of doing things, given our circumstances today. But it's all very contingent.
 
Last edited:
The meaning of life = 42
 
ataraxia said:
What works and what doesn't work are very pragmatic considerations. But what works in one situation or one era does not work in another. It's not about finding some ultimate truth. It's just about what works better in a given situation and circumstance. And situations and circumstances are changing all the time. It's all very Darwinian.

In the ancient world, both in Mongolia and the west, resources were limited. The size of the pie was very limited, and everyone was very hungry. The only way you could get more pie was to kill your neighbor and take his share. And so people did. You were judged "great" only insofar as how well you could take other people's stuff (Genghis Khan, Julius Ceasar, Alexander "The Great", Napoleon, The British Empire, etc...). This was not just a Mongolian thing. Even a cursory review of the history of the west, from the Romans and Vikings to the two world wars, will show that. Those were the circumstances of the ancient world, and that is the kind of behavior that "worked". Those were the criteria by which success was judged.

The only reason the world has changed and is more peaceful and prosperous today is not because some supposed values of the west won out and they learned the truth better than anyone else. It's because they stumbled on to the industrial revolution. This created the modern world- where we have learned to grow the size of the pie itself. There is more for everyone, but only if there is some reliable law and order, peace and stability, minimization of corruption, and a fair amount of cooperation for technology and business to thrive and for trade to occur. That is what is working now with these new developments and circumstances. This is not anything particularly western, nor closer to some ultimate truth than what existed in the past. It's just (fortunately) a better way of doing things, given our circumstances today. But it's all very contingent.
Click to expand...
I see it a bit differently ( not completely different though). Truth is objective for each given situation ( that makes it objective)... so for instance, taking slaves in ancient times was not morally wrong, whereas today it is ( slaves were often taken after battles, where death would have been the alternative). So the real objective truth of morality is that the motive must direct towards something better than the available alternatives. Motive is key for moral truth though, so killing for fun was, and is, always wrong.Morals are a kind of aesthetic taste so they can be easily subverted to something less attractive and useful...like we’ve seen with the decline of much art...architecture being an obvious example of how less beautiful buildings degrade our life experience...they depress us and degrade our civilisation .

Objective truth regarding science and technology is more obviously measurable...those truths bring clear benefit if used in the morally correct way.
 
Big Eye said:
I see it a bit differently ( not completely different though). Truth is objective for each given situation ( that makes it objective)... so for instance, taking slaves in ancient times was not morally wrong, whereas today it is ( slaves were often taken after battles, where death would have been the alternative). So the real objective truth of morality is that the motive must direct towards something better than the available alternatives.
Click to expand...

Yes, but my point is that this is not leading us up to some ultimate objective truth. Of course there are better and worse, more clever or stupid, ways of doing things given the circumstances at hand and our best current knowledge. But the circumstances and our knowledge are changing all the time. So it's not just all leading to some ultimate truth- eternally true for all circumstances and under all conditions.

The difference in mindset is similar to what is required to understand Darwinian evolution. Before Darwin, everyone thought that of course humans were the culmination of God's creation. And they would point to our success in the natural world to prove it. But understood from an evolutionary standpoint, humans are just well adapted to the circumstances at hand in the world today. One can easily imagine other circumstances (eg, a nuclear holocaust or some catastrophic climate change scenario wiping us out) to which other species like cockroaches might be better adapted. There is no ultimately successful species, or truth.


Big Eye said:
Objective truth regarding science and technology is more obviously measurable...those truths bring clear benefit if used in the morally correct way.
Click to expand...

Most philosophers of science today would disagree with the idea that even science is coming closer to some ultimate objective truth. This would require a correspondence view of truth like that espoused by Wittgenstein in his Tractatus. But even the latter Wittgenstein realized the inherent problems and contradictions of that view. That is why many scientists today call their latest understandings "models" or "theories", no matter how many mountains of evidence they have for it (something that easily confuses the scientifically illiterate masses and leads to all sorts of misunderstandings of the credibility of modern scientific claims). But the fact is that all these models are just that- contingent models that seem to "work" the best, given our latest, best observations and the best and most clever models we can bring to bear on them to make sense of them. But there is nothing ultimately objective, sacred, immutable, or "ultimately true" to any of it- all it takes is one contradictory observation, one slightly more clever model or way of looking at things, to make the scientists reevaluate their latest claims.

In fact, we have found this sort of contingency of our understanding is not to be anything to be dismayed about, but to celebrate. This sort of humble position of never taking our latest scientific understanding to be the "ultimate" or "objective" truth, is a central feature of modern science, not a bug.
 
Last edited:
Here is Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in physics, on this issue of science and "ultimate' or "objective" truth:

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

...If we take everything into account — not only what the ancients knew, but all of what we know today that they didn't know — then I think that we must frankly admit that we do not know.
But, in admitting this, we have probably found the open channel. This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to the idea that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, and tossed out if necessary, with more new ideas brought in — a trial and error system. This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a successful venture at the end of the eighteenth century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar.

...We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.
...It is our responsibility to leave the people of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant as we are. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.
...It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations."
-Richard Feynman
 
I’ll give you an example of an objective truth...it is morally wrong to kill people for fun. The objectivity is not in the act it is in the motive...and it is eternal ( so gladiators killing for entertainment in Ancient Rome was objectively wrong) . Now you are free to have some doubt, and doubt is necessary for refining our understanding of truth...but until there is a really ****ing good reason for supposing the opposite we are being logical if we follow it like an objective fact.
 
Also , humanity has been born into this universe with an ability to consider these concepts...that makes us special indeed...rare as rocking horse shit. It is our primary role to place values with morality , aesthetics and science in mind....but morality is the chief consideration with regard to meaning .
 
Big Eye said:
Also , humanity has been born into this universe with an ability to consider these concepts...that makes us special indeed...rare as rocking horse shit. It is our primary role to place values with morality , aesthetics and science in mind....but morality is the chief consideration with regard to meaning .
Click to expand...

Morality is just prudence.

Killing people for fun is just stupid because the social repercussions are always catastrophic (unless, if course, you are Genghis Khan or Napoleon or something). It takes a lot of energy and it’s usually not worth it.

Besides, we humans have evolved hardwired biological mechanisms that make most of us, who don’t have some brain deficiency like being a psychopath, have strong feelings of revulsion and disgust to engaging in that kind of behavior. Wanton violence is as revolting to most of us as eating poop. Biology plays a powerful role here, not objective truth.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Morality is just prudence.

Killing people for fun is just stupid because the social repercussions are always catastrophic (unless, if course, you are Genghis Khan or Napoleon or something). It takes a lot of energy and it’s usually not worth it.

Besides, we humans have evolved hardwired biological mechanisms that make most of us, who don’t have some brain deficiency like being a psychopath, have strong feelings of revulsion and disgust to engaging in that kind of behavior. Wanton violence is as revolting to most of us as eating poop. Biology plays a powerful role here, not objective truth.
Click to expand...

Killing people for fun is morally costly insofar as it devalues human life...the concept of the soul increases human value...that’s why societies that believe in something beyond this life do so well in terms of longevity imo.


Obviously past history proves your last point wrong...in the past people wallowed in the pain and misery of others...it took a lot of effort to build the Colosseum and thousands went to watch.
 
Big Eye said:
Killing people for fun is morally costly insofar as it devalues human life...the concept of the soul increases human value...that’s why societies that believe in something beyond this life do so well in terms of longevity imo.


Obviously past history proves your last point wrong...in the past people wallowed in the pain and misery of others...it took a lot of effort to build the Colosseum and thousands went to watch.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that killing was always justified in the name of the survival and thriving of your own tribe, however that was defined. It was not wanton. You were talking about wanton violence. You have to be able to justify that violence to them in someway or other. Then it becomes acceptable.

Wanton violence is repulsive to humans, in a visceral and biological way. This has been proven in detailed fMRI studies comparing controls to psychopaths, who don’t have that sense in a neurologically deficient sense, like dyslexics and reading. For such individuals, appeals to the concept of souls and the after-life have not been found to be therapeutic.

I admit the coliseums are tough to explain, except that maybe it was an example of being removed from the violence by the bystander effect, and maybe combined with some mob psychology at play.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Yes, but that killing was always justified in the name of the survival and thriving of your own tribe, however that was defined. It was not wanton. You were talking about wanton violence. You have to be able to justify that violence to them in someway or other. Then it becomes acceptable.

Wanton violence is repulsive to humans, in a visceral and biological way. This has been proven in detailed fMRI studies comparing controls to psychopaths, who don’t have that sense in a neurologically deficient sense, like dyslexics and reading. For such individuals, appeals to the concept of souls and the after-life have not been found to be therapeutic.

I admit the coliseums are tough to explain, except that maybe it was an example of being removed from the violence by the bystander effect, and maybe combined with some mob psychology at play.
Click to expand...
I think many humans love wanton violence...here’s a test for you...

Do you think live streamed fighting to the death would be popular? I do , and I think the more people that watched it the more accepted it would become...like hard core porn.
 
noonereal said:
There is none.

That phrase should be put to bed in favor of teh more apt, "the struggle of life."
Click to expand...

As I said earlier in the thread , it is pretty obvious that humans habitually put values on things...that is our purpose in life, it’s what separates us from everything else ( at least in the degree to which we do it). Placing values is our purpose, it helps us to survive if we get it right ( ie discover when our subjective “ truths” become objective truths...knowledge..or correctly targeted values ) .

The actual objective meaning in life is to conceive of the highest possible value we can have and work towards it.
 
Big Eye said:
I think many humans love wanton violence...here’s a test for you...

Do you think live streamed fighting to the death would be popular? I do , and I think the more people that watched it the more accepted it would become...like hard core porn.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I had to think about that one for a little bit. You make a good point and you may be right. So let me see if I can try to explain this and refine it a little more (for myself and for you- this is philosophical discussion and the Debate Forum at its best: when it makes me have to think a little harder and reconsider things).

I have been impressed by studies showing that there are inherent brain centers for empathy and compassion in us humans. These are hardwired into most "normal" people, and lacking in psychopaths. They have even found "mirror neurons" in the cingulate gyrus of the brain- neurons which specialize in mirroring others' emotions to our own limbic system (emotional centers). That's how when someone else is sad, happy, afraid, etc.... we can mirror and understand those emotions ourselves- the beginnings of feelings of empathy.

So an explanation I'd like to offer: (and I'd love to hear your feedback on): for these brain centers to do their job, the person in question has to be considered "one of us"- one of our tribe, family, group, etc... That seems to be the trigger that turns these brain centers on. Otherwise, the person is not seen as "one of us" and these brain centers don't function and we don't feel any empathy toward their plight. We may even find their suffering amusing. That may explain things like the ancient coliseum or the potential popularity of your hypothetical live streaming of fighting to the death. We don't know these people, so we don't care.

Now in humans, what counts as "one of us" seems to be very flexible. As the Bedouin sayings go: "It's me, my brothers, and my cousins against the world", but then, ominously enough, they also have a saying "It's me and my brothers against my cousins." So what we humans can cognitively start considering "one of us" is very much a sliding scale. Aggression towards the "out" group is justifiable, but never toward the "in" group. There is an interesting lecture from a neurobiologist and primatologist on this sort of behavior (and it seems it's not just specific to us humans, but many other types of primates as well):



Maybe that's why becoming informed and educated about other people, other cultures, tends to breed empathy and understanding- travel, friendships, work acquaintances, watching foreign film, or documentaries, books or even novels of other people and places- tends to make one less "provincial" and more empathetic towards those "others". It helps us see the humanity in them a little more, and we realize they are more like us than we thought. And that may be the trigger for all those brain centers to turn on.

I have to admit this is not entirely my original idea. Many of these ideas come from a philosophy book I read many years ago which was very thought provoking at the time, but which I had forgotten all about until our discussion here:

Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity: Rorty, Richard: 9780521367813: Amazon.com: Books

Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity [Rorty, Richard] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity
www.amazon.com

I would recommend it, although I'll warn you it IS pretty heavy reading and presupposes a lot of familiarity with the history of philosophy and various thinkers, from Plato to Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Dewey, and Derrida.

Regardless, I still question whether talking to psychopaths about the after-life and souls would really help them shape up. I am not aware of any studies showing this is a helpful measure.
 
Last edited:
Big Eye said:
values on things...that is our purpose in life, it’s what separates us from everything else
Click to expand...

This is objectively wrong. All animal place value on things.
We have no uniqueness in this regard.

Big Eye said:
The actual objective meaning in life is to conceive of the highest possible value we can have and work towards it.
Click to expand...

This is also untrue. We simply struggle to survive. As safely and comfortably as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom