Random destinies

[Avatar]

*shrug* Depends on your definition really, doesn't it? You can learn from your mistakes without regretting them. Afterall, the mistake resulted in a valuable lesson.

--A

[Vain]

I don't think you can learn from all your mistakes - sometimes you just end up regretting stuff and you can never learn from the experience.

If I was to be asked if I knew the meaning of my life, or if I actually sought meaning, I'd have to say no. Can I say the same for a doctor who saves a life? Or someone who creates a cure that saves millions of lives? Or invents something that transforms the lives of billions of people? I don't think so. Their lives must have a meaning for them and others

[Avatar]

If you don't learn from your mistakes, you'll keep making them until you do.

Then you'll make new ones.

The beauty of not believing a meaning exists is that you don't feel compelled to go out and find it. Maybe just living is the meaning of your life. *shrug* It can be anything you want. Because you decide.

--A

[Zarathustra]

The claim that "all humans desire or seek x, therefore x exists," is false for one simple reason: reality isn't determined by human desires; its constituent parts can't be deduced merely by looking at what humans would *like* to exist. Humans often desire unattainable or even unreal things. All humans may wish to live forever, this certainly doesn't mean immortality is real. All humans may wish to be rich, beautiful, loved, etc. These desires don't imply anything universal about the nature of reality. This is an anthropomorphic interpretation of the world, making it a place that conforms to humans' wishes.

Many cultures have myths of people in the sky visiting earth. And scientists in many countries are starting to look for these "people." But the existence of SETI doesn't prove that aliens exist.

[aliantha]

I recently read a book by a guy who believes in reincarnation. His take on the meaning of life: In the time between lives, we get together with our guardian angels and pick a quality or two that we want to work in our next life. Then we set up the circumstances of the next life so that our physical body will have that quality. So for instance, if you wanted to work on anger in this life, you and your guardian angels would have set you up in a family situation where you're just about guaranteed to turn into an angry person. Hence, the meaning to your life -- or at least, *this* life -- is to do as much as you can to cure yourself of your anger issues.

I don't think I buy this theory, but it certainly gave me a different way to think about the phrase "meaning of life". I usually think of that phrase in terms of making a mark upon the world, or making the world a better place -- so, more of a macrocosmic (is that a word? ) view. I'd sure like to think that my life has more meaning than just perfecting *me*. Just seems kinda selfish somehow.

Anyhow. In terms of whether destiny is random or not, I tend to think that, generally speaking, we get what we deserve. Which is to say that if you typically act like a jerk, then eventually your behavior will land you in a situation where you will get your comeuppance. The beauty of this world view is twofold: 1) It works regardless of whether you believe there's a Supreme Being -- either God orchestrates the comeuppance, or your own choices do it; 2) you never, ever have to worry about plotting revenge against anybody, because sooner or later it'll be taken care of, without you having to lift a finger.

[The Dreaming]

The claim that "all humans desire or seek x, therefore x exists," is false for one simple reason: reality isn't determined by human desires; its constituent parts can't be deduced merely by looking at what humans would *like* to exist. Humans often desire unattainable or even unreal things. All humans may wish to live forever, this certainly doesn't mean immortality is real. All humans may wish to be rich, beautiful, loved, etc. These desires don't imply anything universal about the nature of reality. This is an anthropomorphic interpretation of the world, making it a place that conforms to humans' wishes.

Many cultures have myths of people in the sky visiting earth. And scientists in many countries are starting to look for these "people." But the existence of SETI doesn't prove that aliens exist.

Don't speak too soon Malik. Another amateur Philosopher is forgetting about technology You might be shocked at some of the discoveries we are making about the genetic components of aging. It's possible we might as much as double or triple our lifespans within my lifetime. (Maybe defeat aging altogether)

Yes, there are desires we have that are aimless or ephemeral or unwise. But what about things like Truth? Harmony? Justice? Are these constructs just like your examples are?

[rusmeister]

The claim that "all humans desire or seek x, therefore x exists," is false for one simple reason: reality isn't determined by human desires; its constituent parts can't be deduced merely by looking at what humans would *like* to exist. Humans often desire unattainable or even unreal things. All humans may wish to live forever, this certainly doesn't mean immortality is real. All humans may wish to be rich, beautiful, loved, etc. These desires don't imply anything universal about the nature of reality. This is an anthropomorphic interpretation of the world, making it a place that conforms to humans' wishes.

Many cultures have myths of people in the sky visiting earth. And scientists in many countries are starting to look for these "people." But the existence of SETI doesn't prove that aliens exist.

Malik, the thing you've never got (evidently) from anything I've said (I've denied this before) is that nobody is saying "reality is determined by desire" (well, maybe TD is...?) or that any perception determines reality. If anything, it is precisely the other way around. Reality can determine perception. If you disagree with that, I will go no further. What you perceive can be evidence of the truth. You seem to confuse perception with emotion ("wishes"). Granted this is a common error - we use the word "feeling" to refer to both perception and emotion. Replace the word "wishes" with the word "perception" and the nature of the difference between what you think our position is and what it actually is may become clear.
Plus, I already said this:

Also, let's distinguish between fantasy desires and universal needs. If you were to tell me that you require no meaning to your life and death; that you do not experience this desire I'd call that poppycock. Obviously, we can't argue if this self-evident proposition is denied.

Would you try to tell me that you desire no meaning to your life? (I'd appreciate a direct answer to this question.)

[Fist and Faith]

Speaking only for myself, yes, I desire meaning to my life. And, as I know of no other way of acquiring legitimate meaning for my life, I have given it to myself.

[rusmeister]

Thanks, F+F.
If I can establish at least that this desire is universal, then maybe I have gotten somewhere. It is entirely distinguishable from "wishes" - to be rich, own a palace, etc. We can accept, perhaps even cheerfully, living without the latter. But who here could cheerfully accept meaninglessness to our whole life?

[Zarathustra]

The claim that "all humans desire or seek x, therefore x exists," is false for one simple reason: reality isn't determined by human desires; its constituent parts can't be deduced merely by looking at what humans would *like* to exist.

Malik, the thing you've never got (evidently) from anything I've said (I've denied this before) is that nobody is saying "reality is determined by desire" (well, maybe TD is...?) or that any perception determines reality.

I realized this when I carefully worded my response. Note that the sentence to which you refer has two parts joined with a semicolon. I'm saying that not only is reality not determined by human desire (one side of the spectrum that is implicit within your argument), but also that its constituent parts can't be deduced merely by looking at what humans would *like* to exist. The first part of my sentence deals with wishful thinking changing reality (which is a belief held by people who think that prayer or living a good life is rewarded by an external supernatural observer); the second part of my sentence deals with what kind of facts we can DEDUCE about reality based on the desires that humans have . . . which is a direct refutation of your "men desire water, therefore water must exist" argument.

If anything, it is precisely the other way around. Reality can determine perception. If you disagree with that, I will go no further. What you perceive can be evidence of the truth.

Reality certainly does determine perception. But illusion also determines perception. Perception isn't entirely dependable on its own. What you perceive can also be evidence of the faults of perception.

You seem to confuse perception with emotion ("wishes"). Granted this is a common error - we use the word "feeling" to refer to both perception and emotion. Replace the word "wishes" with the word "perception" and the nature of the difference between what you think our position is and what it actually is may become clear.

Please show me an example within my writing that illustrates what you're talking about. I'm one of the most anal, technical people on this board (especially when it comes to issues of consciousness). I assure you that I do not confuse perception with emotion. Sometimes I have to modify the way I talk because I won't be understood if I stick to strictly technical terms (as recognized in the history of philosophy--which includes its own confusions and ambiguity). But if I try to speak the with the colloquial usage of these words, do not think that I'm making some naive mistake. We can speak strictly in technical terms, if you want. But that necessitates a common background of education in the history of philosophy.

Also, let's distinguish between fantasy desires and universal needs. If you were to tell me that you require no meaning to your life and death; that you do not experience this desire I'd call that poppycock. Obviously, we can't argue if this self-evident proposition is denied. Would you try to tell me that you desire no meaning to your life? (I'd appreciate a direct answer to this question.)

There is a difference between the desire to make one's life meaningful, and the desire to find meaning in the world as some general principle. The difference, if we're going to use your water/desert analogy, is akin to the difference between me magically creating water in a desert, and for me discovering an ocean of meaning. Only, when I create meaning, it isn't magical . . . at least in the supernatural sense (though it is paradoxical and transcendental). And . . . there is no ocean of meaning. Only a chaos of waves.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are patterns inherent in reality. Science wouldn't be possible without them. But I don't think this is what you mean by "meaning." And here, we'd have to get a lot more technical. "Meaning" has lots of meanings.

I do not have a desire for reality to be meaningful, in the larger sense that life must have a purpose. Nor do I have some desire that my own personal life adhere to this larger, general meaning (or destiny). You can call it "poppycock" if you want. But I blame that on a lack of authenticity and ability to consider alternate worldviews (what one may call "imagination," though without the connotation of imagining something that doesn't exist).

[variol son]

Thanks, F+F.
If I can establish at least that this desire is universal, then maybe I have gotten somewhere. It is entirely distinguishable from "wishes" - to be rich, own a palace, etc. We can accept, perhaps even cheerfully, living without the latter. But who here could cheerfully accept meaninglessness to our whole life?

That depends what sort of "meaning" we're talking about. Because to be honest, I get the feeling that you're talking about some sort of pre-decided measure of meaningfulness, rather than a measure of meaningfulness that each individual sets for him or herself.

[Avatar]

Don't speak too soon Malik. Another amateur Philosopher is forgetting about technology You might be shocked at some of the discoveries we are making about the genetic components of aging. It's possible we might as much as double or triple our lifespans within my lifetime. (Maybe defeat aging altogether)

Sorry, it looks like Malik missed this one. I laugh because of the irony...actually, if my memory serves me, Malik is a huge proponent of the "vastly increased lifespan, perhaps in our lifetimes." In fact, when I read him say "maybe it won't happen" or whatever he said, my thought was, "ah, but you think it will, don't you?" Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm fairly sure...there are threads...if only the search function worked properly...Vain!

Anyway, sorry, I have to read on.

--A

[Avatar]

Thanks, F+F.
If I can establish at least that this desire is universal, then maybe I have gotten somewhere...But who here could cheerfully accept meaninglessness to our whole life?

There are people who believe their lives meaningless...ah, but I see where you're getting to...those people aren't usually cheerful. *shrug* I'll agree that the desire for meaning is probably universal...but not that it makes the existence of meaning inevitable.

So what is it that makes us desire this meaning? Can it be a natural outgrowth of our observation of cause and effect? Or merely our unwillingness to accept our own insignificance in the face of an unimaginably vast universe?

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Why should man seek justice in a universe which is manifestly unjust? Are we so insignificant and vain that we cannot look upon the raw, naked face of randomness without praying it will smile upon us merely because we have been righteous and good?

[Avatar]

Damn straight. (That was, if I think about it, the quote that sealed Neverness for me. )

--A

[Fist and Faith]

rus, I'm not sure the desire is universal, but I'm willing to agree that it is for the sake of argument. This is not evidence that anything exists outside of each of us that can be an objectively correct/best fulfillment of this desire.

[Zarathustra]

Don't speak too soon Malik. Another amateur Philosopher is forgetting about technology You might be shocked at some of the discoveries we are making about the genetic components of aging. It's possible we might as much as double or triple our lifespans within my lifetime. (Maybe defeat aging altogether)

Yes, there are desires we have that are aimless or ephemeral or unwise. But what about things like Truth? Harmony? Justice? Are these constructs just like your examples are?

Believe me, I'm not forgetting! I'm one of those people who believes that the first immortal generation has already been born. Maybe even my generation. But my kids for sure. If we can all hang in there for another 50 years, the technology available then will get us to the next 50 years. And there's absolutely no reason why we can't solve this pesky little "death problem" in 100 years. I just hope Jesus doesn't come back before then, because I really want to see the technological rebuttal to the afterlife conundrum.

Why worry about hell when you're never going to die? By that time, we'd better get used to the idea that this world is all there is. We're going to have to make this place our paradise. But I have no doubt we will.

[Ki just chimed in: longevity researchers are already saying that we'll soon live to 150.]

Of course, the existentialists will have to come up with some new material by them.

[Avatar]

Ha, see? I was right.

--A

[Menolly]

[Ki just chimed in: longevity researchers are already saying that we'll soon live to 150.]

With what type of existance?
Does the old line from The Who apply here?

Hope I die before I get old...

[rusmeister]

rus, I'm not sure the desire is universal, but I'm willing to agree that it is for the sake of argument. This is not evidence that anything exists outside of each of us that can be an objectively correct/best fulfillment of this desire.

A few comments from different posters that deserve response. Time, time...

Are we distinguishing between evidence and proof? I am only claiming that it is evidence, not that it is proof. There is no rational proof of faith in the end. You make a choice. Believe or not. (That was wonderfully expressed in the Matrix films, especially by the Oracle.)
In a court of law or a scientific lab, if I bring in a glove or a bone, it is called "evidence". It is not yet proved to be anything, but it is evidence that COULD eventually lead to proof - which often is a decision of faith based on evidence - of a murder or of evolution. All I am saying is that this desire for meaning IS powerful evidence, even while it is decidedly not proof in the empirical sense (although for me, personally, it IS proof - but that's because I made my decision and now see it from the other side of faith).

Hope that addressed some of y'all's concerns. (F+F? Avatar?)