• 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.

This is also untrue. We simply struggle to survive. As safely and comfortably as possible.

Well, I don't know about that either. At least for humans, we want our life to be about something more than just struggling to survive and being safe and comfortable. Those are critical foundations, of course. But then there is all that stuff of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and such. Given the chance, we humans do often so strive for more, even after our basic needs for security and survival are met. Sometimes we even will sacrifice some of those basic needs to get things higher up on the pyramid.

But that still doesn't necessarily mean anything about souls or after-lifes.
 
we want our life to be about something more than just struggling to survive
Yeah, we want to pray we somehow survive after we die.


we humans do often so strive for more, even after our basic needs for security and survival are met.
Like what, big cars?
That just falls under "comfortable."


But that still doesn't necessarily mean anything about souls or after-lifes.

After life? Seriously?

Souls? Good grief.
 
Yeah, we want to pray we somehow survive after we die.



Like what, big cars?
That just falls under "comfortable."

Well, not really.

If you are not familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I would recommend you look into it. This is actually taught not just in psychology classes but in business schools as well. It has a huge amount of data and studies showing that it really is a very important way to understand what we humans really want and what leads to human feelings of happiness, satisfaction, and fulfillment.


In summary, Maslow bases those important needs of comfort, food, shelter, security, etc... at the base of his pyramid. They are foundational to everything else. You can't do much more if you don't have those basic needs met. But one you do, there is a whole lot of other stuff. From the article:

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs | Simply Psychology

1. Physiological needs (the base of the pyramid) - these are biological requirements for human survival, e.g. air, food, drink, shelter, clothing, warmth, sex, sleep. If these needs are not satisfied the human body cannot function optimally. Maslow considered physiological needs the most important as all the other needs become secondary until these needs are met.

2. Safety needs - Once an individual’s physiological needs are satisfied, the needs for security and safety become salient. People want to experience order, predictability and control in their lives. These needs can be fulfilled by the family and society (e.g. police, schools, business and medical care).
For example, emotional security, financial security (e.g. employment, social welfare), law and order, freedom from fear, social stability, property, health and wellbeing (e.g. safety against accidents and injury).

3. Love and belongingness needs - after physiological and safety needs have been fulfilled, the third level of human needs is social and involves feelings of belongingness. The need for interpersonal relationships motivates behavior.
Examples include friendship, intimacy, trust, and acceptance, receiving and giving affection and love. Affiliating, being part of a group (family, friends, work).

4. Esteem needs are the fourth level in Maslow’s hierarchy - which Maslow classified into two categories: (i) esteem for oneself (dignity, achievement, mastery, independence) and (ii) the desire for reputation or respect from others (e.g., status, prestige).

Maslow indicated that the need for respect or reputation is most important for children and adolescents and precedes real self-esteem or dignity.

5. Self-actualization needs are the highest level in Maslow's hierarchy, and refer to the realization of a person's potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences. Maslow (1943) describes this level as the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be.

After life? Seriously?

Souls? Good grief.

Yeah I know. I agree with you. It's just some people think that the human aspirations to things more than just being comfortable have to take you into an other-worldly realm of souls and after-life. Maslow was just showing that the aspiration doesn't have to necessarily be about an after-life.
 
Love and belongingness needs

Pleasure. We come to this earth craving pleasure when our basic needs are met. Belonginess is nothing but satiation of our need of tribe for SECURITY.

Esteem needs

It's not a need, it's a want because it makes our life more comfortable.

Self-actualization needs

Again, this is not a need. In fact, this is a lot of house shit. Honest.

BTW

Nothing here contradicts anything I said. It's just elongated and painted pretty. Something to sooth the ego.
 
Pleasure. We come to this earth craving pleasure when our basic needs are met. Belonginess is nothing but satiation of our need of tribe for SECURITY.



It's not a need, it's a want because it makes our life more comfortable.



Again, this is not a need. In fact, this is a lot of house shit. Honest.

BTW

Nothing here contradicts anything I said. It's just elongated and painted pretty. Something to sooth the ego.

Well the pyramid is actually broken up into "deficiency needs", and "growth needs". The deficiency needs are the base of the pyramid and need to be fulfilled first. But if you just stop there, you are not going to have a very happy individual. It's about what it takes to have happy, fulfilled individuals, not just individuals who are just alive and breathing and surviving day to day. There is a deep human need to dream, to strive, to create, and to grow.

Actually, people who approach life with the idea that all they need is to fulfill their most basic animal needs end up being deeply unhappy and neurotic individuals.

 
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):


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.
I don’t think we have empathy necessarily based on the idea “one of us”... for instance most good people have empathy for animals , we generally care how they are treated. I do think kids and stupid people can concentrate on differences and pick on minorities that display physical differences in particular...but anyone with half a brain can be walked out of those generally unnecessary prejudices just by interacting more with the group that they think is strange or different. In a way I guess that that base prejudice mechanism is ” training” for necessary survival prejudices...for instance ,cultural prejudices are often valid unlike prejudices based on , say , colour.

My last point kind of points to the cultural divide/war that is currently happening in the West. On one side we have those that are tearing up the pages ( pages that make up the book of our culture) that represent our traditional values because they seek different answers to problems or they don’t consider certain things problems . On the other side we have those who have invested vast amounts of value into the traditions that create our cultures. So we are currently seeing an instinctive reaction against those who are tearing up that investment (The establishment are directing/allowing the destruction of traditional cultural values...hence Trump’s appeal to those who consider him antiestablishment).

In the current situation there are many on both sides who would literally wallow in the death or misery of those on the other side. A perceived attack on fundamental values will incur the greatest , least empathetic response imo. So don’t count on empathy saving us.
 
This is objectively wrong. All animal place value on things.
We have no uniqueness in this regard.



This is also untrue. We simply struggle to survive. As safely and comfortably as possible.
I covered the fact that animals have values...but those values are far less than ours...horses don’t care about the latest trendy colour in saddles for instance.Humans are concerned with placing values on things greater than anything else that has ever existed on this Earth at least. Even you can’t help yourself but put values on things and thoughts.We are unique. I think it was Chesterton who said that man is revolution rather than evolution.

I bet you’re fun at a party lol🤣. It is objectively false to state that life is simply a struggle to survive....I , like most people , spend hours of each day not struggling or thinking about survival...in fact sometimes I have fun ! Many people don’t care if they survive either.
 
I don’t think we have empathy necessarily based on the idea “one of us”... for instance most good people have empathy for animals , we generally care how they are treated.

Well, even there, it depends on if the animal is "one of ours" or one of the "other". For example, most people have no problems eating a big turkey for Thanksgiving, but would get very upset if someone hurt their pet parakeet. They would even be upset if someone did something to the ant colony they keep in their room, but may hire the exterminators to get rid of the cockroach problem in the house.

And as another example in humans, you have heard the term "honor among thieves", right? Thieves have no problem stealing from "others", but when it comes to their "in-group", a different set of rules of acceptable behavior apply. Even the most violent gang members will have no problem committing the most heinous atrocities to those outside the gang, but are expected to obey a different set of ethical standards of behavior with fellow gang members. This whole "us vs. them" thinking in the brain is critical for how the brain can find acceptable norms of behavior toward other human beings. The way that question gets answered lies entirely in: are they "one of us", or "the other"?

I am not just making this stuff up in some imaginative way. There has actually been a huge amount of research in the field of neuroscience on this:



My last point kind of points to the cultural divide/war that is currently happening in the West. On one side we have those that are tearing up the pages ( pages that make up the book of our culture) that represent our traditional values because they seek different answers to problems or they don’t consider certain things problems . On the other side we have those who have invested vast amounts of value into the traditions that create our cultures. So we are currently seeing an instinctive reaction against those who are tearing up that investment (The establishment are directing/allowing the destruction of traditional cultural values...hence Trump’s appeal to those who consider him antiestablishment).

In the current situation there are many on both sides who would literally wallow in the death or misery of those on the other side. A perceived attack on fundamental values will incur the greatest , least empathetic response imo. So don’t count on empathy saving us.

Yes, cultural traditions are very important to act as foundations for cultural identities. They ground us. But, with that being said, they cannot act as concrete blocks around the feet either. Is it ever OK to criticize and try to change certain cultural values and traditions which one may find harmful, dysfunctional, or obsolete (even if mistakenly), simply because a lot of time has already been invested in it, or because some people define their identity in those terms?

Let me give an example: the caste system in India has been around for literally thousands of years. It has been the foundational basis around which society has been ordered. It is of course a highly unjust and dysfunctional system, and has led to much injustice and suffering. It has been hurtful to social mobility and economic growth: many in lower castes with great promise and talent have been denied opportunities in work and school simply because of the particular caste they happened to be born to. People are not allowed to marry those they love if they are not of the right caste. The Indian government and many intellectuals have been eager to root this system out for all those reasons. There have been laws passed to try to reform it.

But it is so deeply ingrained in the culture that it has been difficult to get people to stop thinking in those terms. You can try to pass laws and legislate against discrimination based on caste. But you cannot legislate what is in people's hearts. This is such a fundamental part of the Hindu identity that most people can't even begin to imagine India without a caste system. People will even quote from their sacred scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, to support this system as something inherent to natural law and the will of God.

So do you think these intellectuals and legislators should just abandon any attempt to reform this terribly unjust system because so much time has been invested in making it and preserving it and because it is such an important part of their cultural identity and values? Or is it OK to keep trying to change things despite the popular backlash?
 
Last edited:
happy individual.

This is a luxury afforded the affluent. Please, understand affluent and don't think I just mean the rich among us, I speak of affluent societies of which we are one.

You recite what you have been taught very succinctly that you considerer it right because you take the classroom as another takes religion is to your detriment

peace
 
cultural traditions are very important to act as foundations for cultural identities. They ground us. But, with that being said, they cannot act as concrete blocks around the feet either.

as with the guns nuts, great example, well done!
 
This is a luxury afforded the affluent. Please, understand affluent and don't think I just mean the rich among us, I speak of affluent societies of which we are one.

Yes of course. Because, after all, nature has evolved us only to survive and reproduce, not necessarily to be happy. Happiness truly is a luxury. But that doesn't make it not worth pursuing. Even Aristotle knew this two and a half millenia ago:

“Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.”
-Aristotle

But it's not a luxury the vast majority of humanity has today or has ever had in the past- even the most affluent. Obviously it's about much more than just having food, water, and shelter; or even a gold watch or driving the latest exotic sportscar. It is a luxury that seems to be more than just having the money to afford it, or even just being comfortable. There are tons of deeply unhappy rich people, and very happy poor people. There are people who are physically comfortable, and yet depressed. And those who face enormous challenges and yet can't wait to tackle them excitedly every day. We just don't know how to understand what makes us happy in a very systematic, scientific way. It's a very slippery and complex subject, obviously. Maslow's pyramid is just one approach to trying to figure it out . This whole area, positive psychology, is a big area of research today.

So should we should never strive to be happy, to try to understand it, or try to approach the study of it scientifically? And if we do that's the same thing as religion?
 
Last edited:
Survival and reproduction. Maybe hockey.
 
Yes of course. Because, after all, nature has evolved us to survive and reproduce, not necessarily to be happy. Happiness truly is a luxury. But it's not a luxury the vast majority of humanity has today or has ever had in the past- even the most affluent. Obviously it's about much more than just having food, water, and shelter; or even a gold watch or driving the latest exotic sportscar.

But does that mean we should never strive to be happy, and if we do that's the same thing as religion?

define happy

fill oneself with pleasures?
 
the latest trendy colour in saddles for instance.

A differance in evolution I will not dispute. A sameness in desires remains.
Don't be confused by their manifestations.
 
Humans are concerned with placing values on things greater than anything else that has ever existed on this Earth at least. Even you can’t help yourself but put values on things and thoughts.We are unique.

How do you measure the value of a nut to a squirrel compared to a E Class Mercedes to a human?

There is NOTHING unique about us except for many a humans intolerable ego. ;)

It is objectively false to state that life is simply a struggle to survive....

My statement is very correct in macro. You confuse yourself in the micro.
At a party you could learn much from me if you came with an open mind and a thirst for knowledge.

peace
 
define happy

fill oneself with pleasures?

Yeah, good question. If you start talking with these positive psychology folks, who spend their whole time studying this stuff, you will find even they will have trouble defining it exactly.

But does that mean the concept is too vague to even try to understand, pursue, or even try to talk about? What did Jefferson mean when he talked about "the Pursuit of Happiness" in the DOI? What did Aristotle mean 2500 years ago when he said:

“Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.”
-Aristotle

I think they both had in mind something a little more than just making sure you have a full stomach and a roof over your head.
 
Last edited:
What did Jefferson mean when he talked about "the Pursuit of Happiness"

Living in a sociaty where you would more easily be able to satiate your fundamental needs so you would be able to concern yourself with pleasure.
 
Living in a sociaty where you would more easily be able to satiate your fundamental needs so you would be able to concern yourself with pleasure.

There are a lot of people who do that, and are severely depressed. Happiness is not pleasure (I understand they can be tangential).

Working hard at a hard task you firmly believe in may not be pleasurable, but it sure can bring inner happiness.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is.
What you speak to is the lack of universality that brings pleasure.
I can’t agree with that. Happiness is far more complex than just pleasure.
 
Of course it is.
What you speak to is the lack of universality that brings pleasure.

No, the topic is much more complex than that, and there are some universal principles:

 
No, the topic is much more complex than that, and there are some universal principles:



With all respect, LOL

seriously

I would love to straighten out douche bags like this.

There are the little kids who take themselves too seriously.

peace
 
With all respect, LOL

seriously

I would love to straighten out douche bags like this.

There are the little kids who take themselves too seriously.

peace

You then have to explain the phenomenon of depressed/anxious rich people and happy/content/satisfied poor people.

How to explain all those multimillionaires on Zoloft, and still committing suicide?
 
How to explain all those multimillionaires on Zoloft, and still committing suicide?

Honest, this is a silly question.

I have no interest in explaining how you have conflated things.

Peace
 
Back
Top Bottom