The meaning of life.

[can2man]

no it is not

peace

Why?
peace as well

 

[ataraxia]

Honest, this is a silly question.

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

Peace

I am not sure why this is conflating. Your theory that happiness is just having one’s needs met and being comfortable does not explain unhappy suicidal millionaires. It’s a big hole in your theory.

it also doesn’t explain why many people in poor countries are often happier than those in economically developed nations. Another big hole in your theory.

 

[noonereal]

Your theory that happiness is just having one’s needs met and being comfortable

This is not even close to what I know.

Please stop.

Thank you

peace

 

[Big Eye]

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:





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?

I think it is easy to conflate the natural human will to belong ( to a particular group) with the idea that we hate other groups. I’m a British patriot ( though there’s less and less Britain to be patriotic about lol), but I don’t wish harm on French patriots...good luck to them unless they attack us. Identity, national or otherwise, is a very potent value...it brings great meaning to people’s lives because it can be a protector of culture...culture being one of our greatest meanings.

I still say though that there is a huge market for blood sports, nothing has really changed since Roman times other than people have tended to get more squeamish...but they can lose that quickly once cultural norms are eroded.

The cast system in India is abhorrent to westerners but the idea of imposing “fairness” on them is wrong imo...you have to explain why you think they are wrong and why their country would be better without it...then they have to decide to change...it is not our business to impose our will unless you are willing to use force, as in empire building. In other words you have to convince them not try to force them...it’s their culture after all, they own it ,not us.

 

[Big Eye]

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.



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

There is no indication that squirrels value anything to the same degree as us. You and I both know that the human value system extends deeper and wider than squirrel’s values. It would be like comparing an acorn to an oak tree...you can argue that one came from the other but you can not argue that they are alike.There is nothing wrong with ego ...provided it is balanced with humility...in such circumstance it is a positive, I don’t want the people I love to lose their egos , they would cease to be the people I loved.

I think that your materialism has limited your imagination...it has led you to a paint by numbers world view...maybe after some drink and weed you’d losen up lol...

Btw, anyone who claims not to be slightly confused by this reality is almost certainly a nut job...one of my sayings is that if don’t go a little bit mad then you’ll probably go completely insane...it’s a safety valve lol.

 

[ataraxia]

I think it is easy to conflate the natural human will to belong ( to a particular group) with the idea that we hate other groups. I’m a British patriot ( though there’s less and less Britain to be patriotic about lol), but I don’t wish harm on French patriots...good luck to them unless they attack us. Identity, national or otherwise, is a very potent value...it brings great meaning to people’s lives because it can be a protector of culture...culture being one of our greatest meanings.

I agree a sense of cultural identity is important. But you can't have too much of an iron grip on it. No one ever really has, because it's fairly impossible to do so. They always end up changing, albeit every so slowly, no matter what you do. If you try too hard, it becomes dysfunctional. Contemporay British identity and culture has been socially constructed out of numerous other identities and cultures which at one time were in great conflict with each other: the Celts, the Angles, the Saxons, the Romans, The Normans, the Vikings, the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, etc, etc.... British identity and nationalism only became a coherent identity which made sense since the 19th century or so. It is a very contingent thing. This is not unique to the British isles. It has been like that everywhere in the world, throughout history.

I still say though that there is a huge market for blood sports, nothing has really changed since Roman times other than people have tended to get more squeamish...but they can lose that quickly once cultural norms are eroded.

My point is that there are many cultural/sociological/psychological factors underlying such phenomena. Blood sports WERE the cultural norm in Rome. Should they have tried to preserve and protect it at all costs so as not to have their cultural norms eroded.

These things have nothing to do with belief in after-life or other-worldly entities. The cultures with such beliefs have not been found to be that different with such practices than those without. There are other, very this-worldly factors at play in such phenomena which get studied by historians, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, etc.... We can get into them if you like, but then that would seem to be a tangent from the main topic of discussion here.

The cast system in India is abhorrent to westerners but the idea of imposing “fairness” on them is wrong imo...you have to explain why you think they are wrong and why their country would be better without it...then they have to decide to change...it is not our business to impose our will unless you are willing to use force, as in empire building. In other words you have to convince them not try to force them...it’s their culture after all, they own it ,not us.

The calls for reform of the Indian caste system today are mostly coming from within India, not from without. Should they stop, in the name of trying to protect their cultural identity?

Calls for increasing women's rights in Islamic countries today are mostly coming from within Islamic countries themselves, not from without.

This is no different than the calls for women's suffrage, or elimination of slavery from within western cultures themselves in the last century.

The question is: should a culture ever seek to change, grow, criticize, or reform itself if it starts to see some of its own practices as unjust, obsolete, or dysfunctional? Or are all cultural practices just random practices that determine its identity and so must be blindly adhered to, because the most important thing is to protect that cultural identity and make sure it never changes?

 

[Big Eye]

I agree a sense of cultural identity is important. But you can't have too much of an iron grip on it. No one ever really has, because it's fairly impossible to do so. They always end up changing, albeit every so slowly, no matter what you do. If you try too hard, it becomes dysfunctional. Contemporay British identity and culture has been socially constructed out of numerous other identities and cultures which at one time were in great conflict with each other: the Celts, the Angles, the Saxons, the Romans, The Normans, the Vikings, the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, etc, etc.... British identity and nationalism only became a coherent identity which made sense since the 19th century or so. It is a very contingent thing. This is not unique to the British isles. It has been like that everywhere in the world, throughout history.



My point is that there are many cultural/sociological/psychological factors underlying such phenomena. Blood sports WERE the cultural norm in Rome. Should they have tried to preserve and protect it at all costs so as not to have their cultural norms eroded.

These things have nothing to do with belief in after-life or other-worldly entities. The cultures with such beliefs have not been found to be that different with such practices than those without. There are other, very this-worldly factors at play in such phenomena which get studied by historians, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, etc.... We can get into them if you like, but then that would seem to be a tangent from the main topic of discussion here.



The calls for reform of the Indian caste system today are mostly coming from within India, not from without. Should they stop, in the name of trying to protect their cultural identity?

Calls for increasing women's rights in Islamic countries today are mostly coming from within Islamic countries themselves, not from without.

This is no different than the calls for women's suffrage, or elimination of slavery from within western cultures themselves in the last century.

The question is: should a culture ever seek to change, grow, criticize, or reform itself if it starts to see some of its own practices as unjust, obsolete, or dysfunctional? Or are all cultural practices just random practices that determine its identity and so must be blindly adhered to, because the most important thing is to protect that cultural identity and make sure it never changes?

I don’t think many people want an “iron grip” on national identity...but core values that have developed over hundreds of years should be respected and only challenged if there is a really pressing , important need and any change should be slow, not rapid as we see today .England is one of the oldest states in the word, it’s existed for around a thousand years and people here have grown accustomed to their ways, ways which have created one of the greatest places to live on the planet. Now that is under attack from a political class that imposes multiculturalism , “wokeness” and restricts freedom of speech. Those are rightly seen as direct attacks on our culture. The liberal wealthier classes are more than willing to damage something which is a central value in many people‘s lives...that’s why there is a growing sense in the West that the establishment is working against the best interests of its citizens and why we are headed towards internal conflict. Another point that needs to be understood is that when others invaded ( Normans, Danes, Saxons) it was not for the benefit of the original Britons...only over great time did those invasions start to benefit the people here with useful cultural imports.

It is down to people that live within cultures to change them...but you really do need a critical mass of people for that to happen. The only way it can be changed from outside is by force. Also it may be the case that some of our modern values are not compatible with the long term well-being of society so we shouldn’t get too arrogant in the belief that we are right and they are wrong...maybe Muslims are right about abortion.

Thats another thing...I’m not sure we can say we care more about human life when abortion is used on a massive scale for birth control...doesn’t seem very enlightened to me anyway. Valuing human life is a core meaning imo...that’s why concepts like the soul are central to the longevity of civilisations, the sacredness of human life...at least those that are not a threat.

I guess it comes down to protecting cultural practices that have clearly benefitted the civilisation that you live in and changing only when there are enough people that think change is required...so for instance, when slavery was no longer required for society to function we got rid of it.

 

[noonereal]

There is no indication that squirrels value anything to the same degree as us. You and I both know that the human value system extends deeper and wider than squirrel’s values.

No, I do not know that. Not at all. Why do you think yourself above a squirrel? Ego?

I think that your materialism has limited your imagination

I never spoke to materialism.
That you interpreted my posts as such seems rather limiting.

anyone who claims not to be slightly confused by this reality is almost certainly a nut job

once you accept that you do not have the capacity to understand there is nothing to be confused by

 

[Big Eye]

No, I do not know that. Not at all. Why do you think yourself above a squirrel? Ego?



I never spoke to materialism.
That you interpreted my posts as such seems rather limiting.



once you accept that you do not have the capacity to understand there is nothing to be confused by

I have greater mental and physical abilities than a squirrel...I know you might not think that but I do Lol. As an example I know that I live on a planet in a pretty non descript solar system ...I don’t think whiskers comprehends that.

You have a clear materialist word view insofar as you believe we are locked into a type of cause and affect environment.

I don’t claim to understand everything but I am able to deduce things that squirrels can’t ...one thing I can deduce is that this whole existence may have no mind independent component to it at all...but maybe the squirrel feels that anyway.

 

[ataraxia]

I don’t think many people want an “iron grip” on national identity...but core values that have developed over hundreds of years should be respected and only challenged if there is a really pressing , important need and any change should be slow, not rapid as we see today

Can you give me an example of a cultural practice which you see as changing rapidly which should alarm us? Is it the loss of traditional religion which concerns you?

 

[Big Eye]

Can you give me an example of a cultural practice which you see as changing rapidly which should alarm us? Is it the loss of traditional religion which concerns you?

I think religion is vital ( but I’m two faced because I have trouble believing ) because it increases the value of human life...anything that devalues life is a negative imo. Multiculturalism is a real threat to unity I believe. That doesn’t mean people of different cultures can’t live peacefully side by side but the kind of western multiculturalism being pushed is very much anti western /anti Christian I believe. I’d also say equating gay marriage with straight marriage is risky because obviously no extra value is being given to a relationship that has at least a chance of creating life...and I speak as someone who decided when I was very young that I never wanted kids.

 

[Valery]

Calls for increasing women's rights in Islamic countries today are mostly coming from within Islamic countries themselves, not from without.

But they are influenced from without. The media is much like a plauge. It infects minds with all sorts of perverted ideas.

 

[ataraxia]

I think religion is vital ( but I’m two faced because I have trouble believing ) because it increases the value of human life...anything that devalues life is a negative imo. Multiculturalism is a real threat to unity I believe. That doesn’t mean people of different cultures can’t live peacefully side by side but the kind of western multiculturalism being pushed is very much anti western /anti Christian I believe. I’d also say equating gay marriage with straight marriage is risky because obviously no extra value is being given to a relationship that has at least a chance of creating life...and I speak as someone who decided when I was very young that I never wanted kids.

So then why not condemn people or couples who decide not to have children? Those same groups that keep talking about how they are all just about life have had no problem wiping out the lives of those not in their tribe.

Because this is not really about that. The “abortion issue” has become a tribal identifier for some groups, much like not eating pork for certain groups.

 

[ataraxia]

But they are influenced from without. The media is much like a plauge. It infects minds with all sorts of perverted ideas.

So any time anyone thinks there is something dysfunctional, unjust, or obsolete in a society it must be dismissed as just being the media’s fault? We should go back to burning witches at the stake and only allowing wealthy male landowner to vote? Or forget voting, just have a king because he has the divine right to rule, right?

 

[Valery]

So any time anyone thinks there is something dysfunctional, unjust, or obsolete in a society it must be dismissed as just being th

No, I never said that. But America does influence and wants to influence the whole world through their corrupt media and it does cause a lot of things dysfunctional, unjust and obsolete in societies. Not only America of course.

 

[ataraxia]

No, I never said that. But America does influence and wants to influence the whole world through their corrupt media and it does cause a lot of things dysfunctional, unjust and obsolete in societies. Not only America of course.

So societies, whether the he US, UK, or any other nation, would never recognize unjust, obsolete, or dysfunctional cultural practices in their own societies if it wasn’t for the US or corrupt media? Because everyone has a culture and needs to stick with its cultural traditions forever? Because these are all just random things things that nobody inside or outside that culture can judge as better or worse, and they are better off just sticking with them because the most important thing is to have a cultural identity and traditions that never change?

 

[Manc Skipper]

The way to true happiness is by simply agreeing with anything anyone ever tells you. "This is not true!" you may say, to which I respond, "All right then, it isn't!"

 

[Valery]

So societies, whether the he US, UK, or any other nation, would never recognize unjust, obsolete, or dysfunctional cultural practices in their own societies if it wasn’t for the US or corrupt media? Because everyone has a culture and needs to stick with its cultural traditions forever? Because these are all just random things things that nobody inside or outside that culture can judge as better or worse, and they are better off just sticking with them because the most important thing is to have a cultural identity and traditions that never change?

If you're going to just twist everything I say, let's stop. I clarified my point enough.

 

[Big Eye]

So then why not condemn people or couples who decide not to have children? Those same groups that keep talking about how they are all just about life have had no problem wiping out the lives of those not in their tribe.

Because this is not really about that. The “abortion issue” has become a tribal identifier for some groups, much like not eating pork for certain groups.

Who is on about condemning anyone? But it is clear that relationships that generate life and stability are of higher value to society than those relationships that do not...so , for instance , I don’t think gay people should call their relationship marriage...but I am not against them living as they like and having relationship recognition by the state.

The abortion issue is bigger than a “tribal identifier”..it is about the value that society places on life. I’d never judge anyone who had an abortion...it is not for me to judge, but no society is healthy that promotes it as a birth control system because of the devaluation of life.

Overall I’d say the West’s value systems have been degraded and that there will be a price for that.

 

[Big Eye]

There is another issue here too... there’s the implication that people have innate rights...to marriage , their own bodies ( abortion), choice of their own gender etc...but generally these same people have no issue with , for instance , buying goods made in a slave state like China...it does make me wonder if they are genuine about rights rather than just obsessed with their own right to do what they like....they are not driven so much by the greater good so to speak.

 

[stevecanuck]

We don't agree on much, but I also think China will dominate economically and politically. They have the demographics and geographics to do so, but more importantly, they are far more ruthless in pursuing their goals. And they are a lot more focused. Their values will eventually dominate the planet, or at least most of it.

China will eventually have to deal with the rise of Islamism (actually, they've already started by oppressing the Uighurs).

Either way, it's lose-lose for the rest of us.

 

[stevecanuck]

There is another issue here too... there’s the implication that people have innate rights...to marriage , their own bodies ( abortion), choice of their own gender etc...but generally these same people have no issue with , for instance , buying goods made in a slave state like China...it does make me wonder if they are genuine about rights rather than just obsessed with their own right to do what they like....they are not driven so much by the greater good so to speak.

Yup, if the West were to truly do "the right thing", we would isolate China in every was possible. However, we would pay through the nose for it. How many people, when the rubber hits the road, would pay $30 for a new tee shirt when there's essentially the same thing on the shelf from China for $8.99? We are one big collective hypocrite.

 

[Big Eye]

Yup, if the West were to truly do "the right thing", we would isolate China in every was possible. However, we would pay through the nose for it. How many people, when the rubber hits the road, would pay $30 for a new tee shirt when there's essentially the same thing on the shelf from China for $8.99? We are one big collective hypocrite.

I kind of hope that we begin to go back to buying better produced quality items ( made by democratic countries) that last longer...rather than constantly replacing cheap goods with more cheap goods. I think we are also becoming bored with the constant upgrade of technology.

 

[Waddy]

China will eventually have to deal with the rise of Islamism (actually, they've already started by oppressing the Uighurs).

Either way, it's lose-lose for the rest of us.

China will crush the Islamists. Just like they do all opposition. Their "Belt and Road' program spreads through other countries by taking care of the ruling elite and letting them crack down on their own opposition in any manner they like. We ain't talking democracy here, folks.

 

[GDViking]

The meaning (purpose) of life is to place values ( positive and negative ) on things and ideas...we all do it , there is no choice.

The more things that you can place positive values on the more meaningful your life becomes.

The higher the value you give things and concepts the more meaningful your life becomes.

It can often require effort to place value on things and ideas.

The meaning of life is to strive to value things/ideas.

I didn't read through so you may have already got your answer, however if not it's 42...