1
   

The Will to Purpose

 
 
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 08:41 am
The will to provide meaning is such an integral aspect of most philosophies, ideologies, religions, and societal rules in general; so strong that we, on one hand, adhere to the scientific methodology of evidence supporting conjecture, while at the same time, some of us worship gods and behave, as well as espouse, thoughts which can only be considered antithetical to rational thought. And yet billions don't seem to realize, or care, that they are committing such a blatant, and constant act of doublethink every single day of their lives. Perhaps faith does indeed require a leap; a leap of what, though? How is faith mentally healthy?

It's been generally assumed, by many psychologists and philosophers, although not fully, that the underlying reason for the formation of laws, order, society, dogmatic institutions, is simply an extension of the human will to control, to dominate, or to submit. That we graduate towards the formation of an organized society based upon a central command structure, and generally, a set of laws, to provide order; and that order, in itself, is a means of control by one party, over the rest of the populace.

However, this seems to me, to be not the only case, and not the only reason. The will to power, so called, is not enough to explain why the human existence orders itself into functional groups. On the unconscious level, the instinctual, animalistic level, we are no different from animals. We kill each other (we mostly stopped the habit of eating each other), we steal from each other, we conquer each other, and we cooperate in a social heirarchy. Animals, the ones currently not shown to exhibit the ability of complex thought compared to our own, if they indeed do not possess complex thought processes, do not ask themselves why they exist, do not create institutions providing an emotional comfort by claiming to know the secrets of the universe. Humans are more complex than lower animals, and we are capable of asking ourselves questions. We are capable of philosophizing, and of posing myriads of question concerning reason, of everything in general.

The fact we are capable of complex thought, and of consciously ordering our societies, seems to indicate more than just the will to power at work here. The will to [create] meaning is, in this aspect, more powerful than the aspect of power, because power does not describe the reasons inherent, nor the necessity of that power, or the continuation, or the dissolution thereof. If the will to create purpose in our lives and justify everything we do was not prime, we never would have organized religions or institutions or politics or philosophical ideologies because none of it would have benefited or mattered to the prevailing human condition. But, that wasn't our fate. The human condition, at this point in time, and for thousands of years past, and perhaps until the ending of the human race, necessitates reasoning, purpose, of our lives, and the societies we serve.
Some people do not actively require an outlet for this drive to create purpose. There are many who are content with their lives and do not worship idols or attend mass gatherings or read contradictory, archaic writings. So, is it just that those people, the ones who need a reason in order to be content, are simply weaker people? Not really. Though, the fact that if someone were to be stripped of their religion if, somehow, that religion could be proven wrong, would be devastating to the human psyche, and has ended, for certain individuals, in self-inflicted pains, or worse. This indicates that the majority of human society requires a validating purpose to their lives. The consequences of lack of purpose would be greatly catastrophic, at the least.

The universe needs not to have a divine "purpose" for someone to have a will to meaning and purpose. The majority of our world believes in a divine purpose, or some form of divine ideology. Those who have chosen to follow a more materialistic and rationalist view have, inherently, no such beliefs in the nature of the universe outside of scientific fact. Much of the history of our world has been a clash between humanism and science against religion and dogmatics. We find such a polarization of ultimate belief from this stratification of thought; to ensure the survival of our comfort zone as per the mode of thought we find most acceptable, we seek refuge in the extremes.

For animals, the will to power is what orders their societies. For humans, not just the will to power, but, even more so, the will to purpose is what creates stability for human society. Whether political or religious in nature, or any other form which predominates, the will to purpose is stronger than the will to power; power simply exists, purpose necessitates that power. And that is how the human condition is.

I find no underlying purpose or reason for the existence of our universe. I find nothing to necessitate a belief in any sort of divinity or ultimate purpose and will. Sometimes, I honestly wonder why I continue living. I believe that once my body dies, the absence of a soul will mean the death of the person typing these words. I know that death is the common denominator of this universe, and I accept that. I'm simply afraid of dying, and I'm not too keen on experiencing it.

We form governments, we create nations, we elect or experience coup d'etats and the rise of dictators and despots and kings alike. We go to school to educate ourselves so that we can get a job when we are older. Most of us will find a mate and most of us will pass on a physical legacy. Which is how I know I'm a pretty extreme nihilist when I think of all these things, and know that there's no point. Every system fails, and this doesn't exempt nations and governments, or even a species. Nature should be respected because it sure as hell doesn't respect you. Yet, I still live, and I still participate when I feel like participating for no real reason. Telling myself I want to experience life would be a self-delusion; life entails pain and suffering and heartache and then, slow death. Saying that I want to live just to live is purposeless. In the end, I realize I don't even know what my motivations for staying alive are.

If there is a meaning to the universe, what good will it do for any of us? We'll all still exist as a weak and fragile emotional human being subject to all the pains and miseries that life brings to us; and I think we all realize, deep down inside, there's more pain and suffering than pleasure and happiness in this world. We will still get a broken heart, we will still suffer broken bones, cuts, scrapes, accidents, and **** will be flung at us just as much as before. Life will still be life, and then you'll die, and nothing will matter. Nothing matters. Not even our own lives. Why would we matter if we simply and utterly die? The mind is such a fragile thing, and when it ends, it can never come back.

I scoff at people who say that our soul/consciousness is immutable. Those who have suffered brain damage have shown personality changes on such a magnitude as to be almost a new person. The original person is dead. A new one emerges from the ego: new, but yet, the same. In some cases, most memory of the original personality is retained; in some cases, not. And then we think about the effects of prolonged torture and brainwashing, most notably the concept of a Room 101, and we really begin to understand that there's nothing immortal or "holy" about the human being.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,661 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 09:31 am
@Mephistopheles phil,
Mephistopheles,Smile

"I am not afraid of dying, I just do not want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen

:)You have outlined the human conditon pretty well I would say, King Lear would be proud. Schopenhauer once said, "Life is something which should never have been." The late Joseph Campbell said of this, that he thought it an immature stance. So, it was not your intension to be here, and yet, here are, you might as well put your will behind it and play the best game you can, or as Nietzsche said, "Life requires a sacred yes." "Look to long into the abyss and the abyss will look into you." It is a mistake I believe to take death personally. As I heard it expressed once, it is a matter of what you choose to identify with, take a great chandelier with its many bulbs, a bulb burns out, the caretaker comes and replaces said bulb, if we were identifying with the bulb we would feel like mourning, if however you identitfied with the light of the chandelier, the light is relatively immortal. What is it you imagine dies at the event of your death, are you the light or are you a bulb. I could get off on a tangent about just what personal idenity really is but perhaps in another thread.

Again Mephistopheles, Welcome, we are most pleased to have you with us!Very Happy
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 10:20 am
@boagie,
Wow, that is a very comprehensive description of how a spade really is a spade, thank you Very Happy. But this train of thought leads me to question the likely hood that 'I' could come into existence... the phrase that comes to mind when I truly consider my situation compared to the universe is... WTF! A completely sublime experience.

Never the less you have described how I feel about my life, searches for meaning and my efforts to lead a 'good' and satisfying life. And I think my conclusion is reflected in how I see Nietzsche's losing of his mind, I like to think perhaps he discovered some truth, asked some question which in an instant transported him into himself, into a new world. My will to meaning is there and I often fabricate meanings of life and righteous paths which I think I should take* but, there is always a feeling of self delusion which usually causes me to stop the wishful thinking.

So what to do? how to live? I find it ever so frustrating to exist.

*the latest delusion is that I should give myself over to humanity, become the tragic hero on such a secretive level that no one notices. To live a life of duty to others without them even knowing. This way I have a purpose- to give, and it is not underscored by self fulfillment because the mission includes not allowing any one to know the mission, not to let them know my life is theirs.

Dan.
Mephistopheles phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 10:22 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Mephistopheles,Smile

"I am not afraid of dying, I just do not want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen

:)You have outlined the human conditon pretty well I would say, King Lear would be proud. Schopenhauer once said, "Life is something which should never have been." The late Joseph Campbell said of this, that he thought it an immature stance. So, it was not your intension to be here, and yet, here are, you might as well put your will behind it and play the best game you can, or as Nietzsche said, "Life requires a sacred yes." "Look to long into the abyss and the abyss will look into you." It is a mistake I believe to take death personally. As I heard it expressed once, it is a matter of what you choose to identify with, take a great chandelier with its many bulbs, a bulb burns out, the caretaker comes and replaces said bulb, if we were identifying with the bulb we would feel like mourning, if however you identitfied with the light of the chandelier, the light is relatively immortal. What is it you imagine dies at the event of your death, are you the light or are you a bulb. I could get off on a tangent about just what personal idenity really is but perhaps in another thread.

Again Mephistopheles, Welcome, we are most pleased to have you with us!Very Happy


Well thank you buddy. I appreciate your comments greatly. I have low self-esteem and I always feel my writings are inadequate.

If I hadn't been banned I would not be here, no. I know that probably raises warning flags but a person who was banned for a good reason would never let people know he was banned. I'm glad to be here though. The atmosphere is relaxed, intellectual, and polite as far as I can tell.
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 10:25 am
@Mephistopheles phil,
Mephistopheles wrote:
Well thank you buddy. I appreciate your comments greatly. I have low self-esteem and I always feel my writings are inadequate.

If I hadn't been banned I would not be here, no. I know that probably raises warning flags but a person who was banned for a good reason would never let people know he was banned. I'm glad to be here though. The atmosphere is relaxed, intellectual, and polite as far as I can tell.


Why were you banned and where from?

Also I forgot to say welcome, welcome!
Dan.
0 Replies
 
Mephistopheles phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 10:28 am
@de budding,
de_budding wrote:
Wow, that is a very comprehensive description of how a spade really is a spade, thank you Very Happy. But this train of thought leads me to question the likely hood that 'I' could come into existence... the phrase that comes to mind when I truly consider my situation compared to the universe is... WTF! A completely sublime experience.

Never the less you have described how I feel about my life, searches for meaning and my efforts to lead a 'good' and satisfying life. And I think my conclusion is reflected in how I see Nietzsche's losing of his mind, I like to think perhaps he discovered some truth, asked some question which in an instant transported him into himself, into a new world. My will to meaning is there and I often fabricate meanings of life and righteous paths which I think I should take* but, there is always a feeling of self delusion which usually causes me to stop the wishful thinking.

So what to do? how to live? I find it ever so frustrating to exist.

*the latest delusion is that I should give myself over to humanity, become the tragic hero on such a secretive level that no one notices. To live a life of duty to others without them even knowing. This way I have a purpose- to give, and it is not underscored by self fulfillment because the mission includes not allowing any one to know the mission, not to let them know my life is theirs.

Dan.


I want to say thank you to boagie and yourself, Dan, for providing interesting and positive comments (not that I don't welcome negative comments). I feel like this is a nice forum after all.

I understand how depressing Nietzsche becomes. My suggestion to you is rise above the petty masses. Succeed in the way you want to succeed, consider adopting some hedonistic concepts from LaVeyan Satanism, consider humanism. Live for the moment. Be yourself. Be an individual. Live your life so well people will weep when you die. That's a life having worth lived.
0 Replies
 
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:01 pm
Thank for your kind suggestions, I'll be sure to follow it up Smile, and what a heroic backstory you have, lose many men in soriangate?Very Happy

Dan.
Mephistopheles phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:46 pm
@de budding,
de_budding wrote:
Thank for your kind suggestions, I'll be sure to follow it up Smile, and what a heroic backstory you have, lose many men in soriangate?Very Happy

Dan.


Heh. It was an epic battle that spanned almost an entire year. We lost many people, largley due to disgust. People got so tired of the endless fighting.
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2008 02:14 am
@Mephistopheles phil,
What was the debate topic that got it started? I think we should try it here, compare and contrast.

Dan.
0 Replies
 
beyond123
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 12:02 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
This post holds absolutely no critical intent toward the OP or any of its other replies. It is merely an expressed simple thought concerning the likelihood of an intent and purpose behind existences as it now exist.



I only write such a thought so that I, myself, may better understand it; I post it only for the fun of participation, not to affect other's thinking.

Without absolute loyalty to any, but study of many of civilization's numerous institutions, as well as my personal observations of nature itself, including humans, I can not help but sense both intent and purpose behind nature's existences-all of it, not just our universe-merely by thinking beyond abc123. However, I claim no understanding of the what, where, when, how, why, or function of either; nor do I assert, or even suggest, that either includes or involves any special consideration for humans.

So here it is so generally stated:

When I seriously and deeply think of the zillions upon zillions of extremely various and complex aspects and activities of nature-yet also, detect such an unbelievably simplistic certainty for it endless operations, I most certainly sense an intentional and purposeful organization, which necessarily arises from, and relies upon, some extreme (perhaps supreme) wisdom that includes an independent will of its own, far beyond human comprehension, yet, from the same necessity, arouses human interest.

For those who doubt the merit of such a generalization and find cause to argue its simple point, I only urge them-own their own-to to seek the involved details beyond abc123 search standards.

An added thought, if present existence does indeed arise from natural intent and purpose, humans-as well as all other parts thereof-just may have a specific-but broad-function to serve here on earth, of course they seemingly must first learn to attend to their own needs without so much violence toward each other.
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:15 am
@beyond123,
beyond123 wrote:

When I seriously and deeply think of the zillions upon zillions of extremely various and complex aspects and activities of nature-yet also, detect such an unbelievably simplistic certainty for it endless operations, I most certainly sense an intentional and purposeful organization, which necessarily arises from, and relies upon, some extreme (perhaps supreme) wisdom that includes an independent will of its own.


Systems show 'intentional and purposeful' traits all the time, it is sometimes necessary that they do because of their structure or how they came into existence.

Dan.
beyond123
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 07:33 am
@de budding,
Of course, as you said,....."Systems show 'intentional and purposeful' traits all the time, it is sometimes necessary that they do because of their structure or how they came into existence. "

Take the system of the river and rain, which involves a numerous set of exact conditions and circumstances to come into being and to continue working as it so simply and reliably does.

But supreme wisdom seemingly must be behind the orginazation of such a complex-yet simple-system itself, as well as its structure.

Unless you yourself carry your own thought beyond abc123 thinking on the point i am trying to make-mostly to myself-you will doubt that my point has any merit.

Which is most certainly ok, for my point just may not have merit, to anyone but me.
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 09:50 am
@beyond123,
I'm just not sure what 'abc123' thinking is...

Dan.
beyond123
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 10:41 am
@de budding,
i take your above statement: "I'm just not sure what 'abc123' thinking is...", as a question.

if i am right, my answer as i mean it is: simply to go deep into your own thinking beyond the established thought on the point trying to be made.
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 02:01 pm
@beyond123,
O' in that case you need to read Creation: Life and how to Make it by Steve Grand to see how your thinking is typically top-down and perhaps shallower than you think. You seem to conclude a God or ultimate will because of 'intentional and purposeful' traits which you have noticed in systems. That is, in my opinion, a cowards way out of a tough challenge.

Although you have notice the '
unbelievably simplistic' you perhaps don't understand the systems you watched enough to work out how they could operate solely on the simplistic. There is never any cause to appeal to a 'wisdom that includes an independent will of its own' when describing the origins of anything; to do so is to seriously upset your explanation ration and destroy your own theory.

But please go on, I wish to know how you think beyond abc123 and how it is so profound that you think your common hypothesis holds more weight than it usually does when projected by religious apologists.

Dan.
beyond123
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 02:19 pm
@de budding,
Sir,

I have not asserted anything about God.

Only that supreme organization is necessarily involved with existence; and suggested that one may sense that necessity only with personal thought beyond established thought.

Since you see no merit to what i have said, i see no cause in discussing it any more.

I most certainly will not argue my simple point.
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 03:41 pm
@beyond123,
Supreme organisation is unrealistic: It suggests a top-down approach where information is cascaded down and spread out into the complex final result. The existence. When dealing with natural existence it is a God concept, god being the one cascading the information down and down through evolution until we reach our complex finale.

The opposite, bottom-up from a common denominator, is the case naturally; existence forming from common constituents, exploiting common cause, unknowingly forming new bonds and systems which again find common cause amongst themselves grouping to make further improvement. This is pretty much how I imagine the forming of the universe from chaos, the raising of life from the primordial goo and the evolution of that life.

Lastly, I don't think there is much cause for any of the discussion in this place, so I'm sorry you won't speak to me further on the subject, I'll take it personally as I hold that argument is a philosophical compliment, as I'm sure most will agree.

Dan.
beyond123
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:04 pm
@de budding,
One final fiddle,

Philosophy constitutes but the study of thought with the use of thought alone for the betterment of humanity.

When nature becomes the focus of philosophical thought, it quickly becomes clear that no human effort-science, religion, government, and all others-presently understand what is realistic or unrealistic within the focus.

Only when one takes their though thereof beyond the established though, including their own, can they even hope for truer understanding.

By the way, in my original reply to the OP, i assured one and all that i would not argue my point with anyone.
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 03:26 am
@beyond123,
If you do not wish to argue your point your in the wrong forum. As I said, I take it personally that you refuse to engage me. You keep appealing to some thought processes that is beyond abc123 and you reiterate this in an even more abstract and poorly written post above... 'Only when one takes their though thereof beyond the established though, including their own, can they even hope for truer understanding.' I am lost for what this means!
Why don't you try to explain what steps you have taken to prove to yourself that there is an ultimate will... like I said this is a God 'concept' and has been argued into the ground long ago.

Dan.
beyond123
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 10:00 am
@de budding,
I, not you, must decide where and when I should post a thought. You, of course, do the same for yourself.

I originally posted in direct reply to the OP. The author there saw no reason to reply.

Arguing with others to prove a point never produces the desired results. Each must argue with, and prove to, them self, not each other.

Socrates argued-and died for-the point that being just and appearing just was best for humanity.

Jesus argued-and died for-the point that loving your enemy was best for humanity.

Gandhi argued-and died for-the point that nonviolence was best for humanity.

All three of these great thinkers fundamentally urged the same human conduct: for one and all to conduct them self in manners harmless to all others.

Nonetheless, humanity's ever growing violence against itself has only constantly increased and intensified.

To me, this seems true because none-a few at best-took those thought beyond abc123 thinking in an argument with them self to see the fundamental proof benind them.

How could they? they were to busy arguing with each other about their own already established proof to the contrary.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Will to Purpose
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 10:50:40