The Point In Human Life

The opinion that is closer to being the correct one is more correct than the wrong ones?
That statement is kinda leading, isn't it?
(I paraphrased, I know it's a bad thing to do...)

It depends on from what point of view it is correct. My statement can be kinda leading so sorry. Surely each of us is right in some point.

fadfa dfadfa loewiakdf




The examples you give, are they the point of being alive or merely a consequence?

The question itself seems a lot bigger than the examples you give. You can give examples of individual purpose, but the question seems to go beyond the individual. It seems to me that when one asks the question, "What is the point of Human Life?", one is asking something like "Why (not how) does human life occur?" or "Did human life come into existence for some purpose?" It seems strange to say that human life came into existence for the purpose of watching tv and breaking legs. Your answer may or may not (I don't think it does) answer the more narrow question of individual experience, but it doesn't answer the broader question of why we exist rather than not exist. Assuming, of course, that there is a reason.

If there is no reason, then it makes no sense to even ask the question. That is, asking what the point of human life is while no point actually exists would be like asking "How many brain cells does a train have?" If human life does not have the property of "having a point" then you cannot ask what "the point" of human life is. The appropriate question would be "Does life have a point?"

luckbfern, I have to defend Pavel's statements. I think that we would both agree that he has put forward examples drawn from an individual experience. Keeping in mind that an individual experience is the only experience possible, Pavel has charmingly and effectively supported his point that the point of human life is to experience material existence and to extend life through procreation. Cynical on the one hand, and biblical on the other.

Which leads me to start thinking about the point of, say, a bumblebee's life. An ideal example because bumblebee's are not necessarily cynical philosophers. Could one safely say then that the point of a bumblebee's life is "to pollenate flowers that the flower may extend the life of flowers", and "to gather honey so that the queen bee may procreate"?

Now my turn to be didactic - I think "purpose" would be a more succinct choice of words:
"Point" denotes a goal-oriented target to be fulfilled. Rather a 'be born, get this done and die interpretation'.
"Purpose" however denotes a more full and sustained effort on our part to accomplish some role.

Beyond which I come to your question: Does Life have a point, or rather a purpose?

Yes, to sustain life.

And to the original question, as to the point of human life:
To use its reasoning capacity to sustain life in all its forms.

Dooropen,

Then you have to deal with the reality that life lives upon life.The symbol most often used to indicate this reality,the snake consumeing its own tail.It is comsumption as well as totality,the snake forms a full circle,the circle is a symbol of totality,that which is cyclical, is whole.

I would agree that we can interpret a near infinite range of experiences, but it seems that this is more an answer to the question of what is sentient existence than to what is a point of life. I think, like some other posts I've read, that people define their own purpose, which doesn't have universal objective significance, but from the point of view of the person, it doesn't matter. Also, smilies :p :rolleyes: :eek:

I think you've stated your point very clearly, but there are two things that do not sit well with me. The first, regarding the use of individual experience in order to determine what the purpose of life is. It seems to me that that reasoning makes use of the Fallacy of Composition.

That is, if all of the individual parts of a system have property X, then the system itself as a whole has property X.

A good example of this is the argument: Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.
This argument seems to use the same form as Pavel's argument about the purpose of life.

The other thing that doesn't sit well with my intuition is the idea that the purpose of life is to perpetuate or sustain life. This seems like circular reasoning to me. I'd have to think about it some more in order to flush out this thought. But it definitely seems odd to me.

I appreciate your response Doorsopen.

personal experience does not dictate a claim to a conclusion unfortunately.

Patience, kind reader, as we digress into questions of Logic

Forgive me for begging the question ...
I believe Pavel's statements are specific, verifiable experiences that many individuals may have. I am compelled to use the term 'individual experience' because collectively we cannot have an experience. It is the sum of individual experiences in this case that leads to a truth, not the contrary, therefore it is not a Fallacy of Composition.

To respond to Aristodler: this is distinct from 'personal experience' which, I agree, does not dictate a claim to a conclusion. To illustrate the various points, and to beg your patience with these obviously overly simplified arguments:

EXAMPLE 1
Humanity is composed of individuals
Humanity experiences Life.
Life has a purpose.
The purpose of humanity is to experience life.
NB: This is false because Humanity does not have a single experience; Humanity's experience is the sum of Individual experiences.

EXAMPLE 2
I have my personal life experiences
Life has a purpose
The purpose of life is my personal life experience.
NB: This is a hasty generalisation.

EXAMPLE 3
Humanity is composed of individuals
An individual experiences life.
Life has a purpose.
The purpose of life is to experience living.
(Or stated otherwise, exploiting Dexter78's conundrum: The purpose of Life is sentient existence.)
NB: This is arguably true.

Thank you luckbfern for keeping my braincells clicking! We need to discuss the nature of color before I accept that cats are not, in fact, colorless!
Thank you Boagie for reminding me of this powerful symbol; and for giving me food for thought on the question of Life consuming Life in order to sustain itself. I do believe, however, that there is a difference between the transfer of energy (in food as an example) and consumption (clearing the rainforest to feed papermills as an example), but that may spark off a debate on morality, which is assuredly not the point of Life.

Now where are we with Life sustaining Life as it's purpose?

Hi Everyone!


Surely the point of life is one and the same across the board, it cannot be said that there is purpose to life in general.As I stated earlier,it is a lot of proplasm with an urge to reproduce.As we understand that there is no objective meaning in the world,so to there is no objective purpose.Are we not talking about the subjective [abstract] value judgement of the individual?:eek:



"Now where are we with Life sustaining Life as it's purpose?"

Life substaining life might dismiss the divine prospect.

Life sustaining life does not dismiss the divine prospect, because life did not create Life, it sustains it.

Doorsopen,

Perhaps then, just indicative of the sense of humor of the divine:D as a baby god he probably pulled the wings off butterflies.Seriously,this is not a question we will find an answer to in these forums.

I fail to see the distinction. And supposing there is a distinction, all individuals have personal experience. Without personal experience there is no individual experience. So, it seems that the existence of individual experience rests on the existence of personal experience, which you reject as a means to arrive at an appropriate conclusion.




I merely stated the example for the purpose of drawing an analogy. I could just change the example to: All atoms weigh less than an ounce, cats are made of atoms, so, cats weigh less than an ounce.



That just seems like another way of saying, the purpose of life is life. Sentient existence already implies life. So all you seem to be doing is stating something analogous to 'bachelors are unmarried'. That's not new information, it's just defining a term. It tells us nothing about the world we live in, which is what we are trying to find information on.

We may have to move this conversation to a post on Logic...

'Personal' denotes a particular person seperate from all others, where an 'Individual' is a single human being, as distinguished from a group.

RE: Colorless cats
I'm just having fun with your proof. It is like the infamous 'If a tree fell in the woods and there were no one to hear it, would it make a sound? (The answer of which is no, of course.)
Color is not dependant on the atomic make-up of the cat. Colour is light which is reflected from an object to our eye, so the cat is in fact colorless. The construct of your new analogy is equally faulty, unless there are cats composed of a single atom, even in which case it would still be faulty example.
Likewise my statement was not a Fallacy of Composition because I am not removing a tree from the forest to prove the purpose of the forest, I am removing a tree from the forest to describe the purpose of trees.

Can you dis-prove that the purpose of Life is life? There, I go again, getting all logical dabnabit!

Ok I'll expound on this idea in a more philosophical way from the heart, because we cannot discount Love (ah that amazing irrational chemical misfiring of the glands) from any discussion about Life's purpose.

Although I am not a theologican, I have a lifelong interest in this question, and through a series of events, explorations and experimentations have come to the conclusion that what I was really looking for to answer this question was some faustian knowledge. Give me all your information in astrophysics, biochemistry, linguistics, causality ... ad nausium-just prove to me that something is real!!. I have come to the conclusion that the answer to Life's purpose is quite simple. But understanding why it exists, and how it came to exist and how it functions is complex when one is searching for some logical unified theory of it all. And that unified fact (yes, I say fact) has been known intuitively for thousands of years. It is encoded in the Pstis Sophia, in the Torah, Pythogorious (sp?) seems to have hit on it, and the Vedic texts describe it. It's proof is all around us in every natural phenomen from the Big Bang to the light bulb.

My statement that Life seeks to sustain Life is the only true moral response to the question, and as morality is a very human subject, the only humane response.
How does one reconcile this morality with religions that tell us we must die to achieve our ultimate purpose? Ultimately one rejects either the religion or the moral purpose, or one lives with the paradox unquestionned. This paradox preverts faith- just believe, don't question ...

I'll sign off for now with the thought that we are all one, all moving in the same light and that our life's purpose is fulfilled when we return to a state of unity.

Meanwhile, I'm working on trying to love it all.

I ask myself the same question, but I see no answer. : (

the awareness of life everywhere in this Universe

if we can be ...... implications in the bigger picture > Universe

the complex and the simple

its not that hard to fathom

Would it not be grand to discover the meaning of human life was to figure out the meaning of life? By asking this question I may have just discovered the meaning.... Humankind may end soon due to my discovery of our purpose in existence.

Obviously I don't think there is a meaning or purpose to our existence.

But all joking aside if that was the case it would be very interesting.

No joking to put aside. The point of life is to live each moment for its own sake and on its own terms; there is no need to find and impose meaning or purpose on our existence.

No joking to put aside. The point of life is to live each moment for its own sake and on its own terms; there is no need to find and impose meaning or purpose on our existence.

well that in essence was the question was it not?