Toughest Philosophical Questions

@Procrustes,

Quote:

And I've got to check my spelling more often

yes

it took me a flippen long time to find the dam word ( rhetorical ) but found it

I thought I knew what you mean't ( I did ) but not quite sure , now I am

existence is , nevertheless

1 Reply

@north,

agreed

0 Replies

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

I think the question could also mean 'what is humanity's purpose?' and if so, aksing what is the purpose of that question would shed light on the fact that humans seek meaning. And so, it might beg further questions such as 'why do we seek any kind of meaning in life in the first place rather than having a 'go with the flow' attitude?' To put in another way, 'Why purpose and why that purpose?' And Cyracuz, yes. It would still be a good idea to ask if there is any purpose to any of these questions that I have just mentioned.

Life is meaning, and purpose usually amounts to more life, and more life means fulfilling many purposes..Life is the ultimate value, and according to that value, all the stuff of life has a value from infinite to nearly nothing, and it is out of correct valuations, finding the correct meaning for all we find in life that survival is made possible...

1 Reply

@Fido,

It feels there is pressure to have the correct meaning in life or else. I'm not sure I'm settled with the idea that I must have meaning, cos if you say life is meaning then why not meaning find my life than the other way round?

1 Reply

@Deftil,

why? that simple and that complex.

0 Replies

@north,

"Purpose is relative to an individual's perspective". Yes. Why don't we hear more from you Gary?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I guess the obvious needs to be put into words.

0 Replies

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

It feels there is pressure to have the correct meaning in life or else. I'm not sure I'm settled with the idea that I must have meaning, cos if you say life is meaning then why not meaning find my life than the other way round?

Most people, and certainly all animals have the sense that life is the ultimate value, the meaning of meanings... People often kill themselves, but always as a flawed intellectual activity, in the view that something, or nothing must be better than life when nothing at all has meaning without life... In this sense, the smallest of germs has more sense than the smartest of humans who will often set humanity on a course that will destroy all, leaving flawed humanity with failed principals to some how change their course... We make much of our mental ability, but let madness rule us...

1 Reply

@Fido,

I understand that life is like the meaning of meanings and agree that life strives to survive but as humans we choose our meanings and choose to sacrifice. I don't think madness is intentionally welcomed by people, rather, madness hijacks people along with malevolence and hatred. (unless your a psychopath then it occurs naturally) But in the spirit of the thread I'll ask this question: why do good things happen to bad people?

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

I understand that life is like the meaning of meanings and agree that life strives to survive but as humans we choose our meanings and choose to sacrifice. I don't think madness is intentionally welcomed by people, rather, madness hijacks people along with malevolence and hatred. (unless your a psychopath then it occurs naturally) But in the spirit of the thread I'll ask this question: why do good things happen to bad people?

Liife is not like the meaning of meanings... It is the meaning of meanings... We do not get to choose what will mean to us... It is instinctual to desire life, to will life... We may let intellectual considerations screw up our natural sense of value, but this is intellectuality defeating natual intelligence... People reason that it is better to die that suffer injustice, or the loss of freedom, or the want of love, or to know poverty, or pain... Well, No!!! The loss of life means all these secondary considerations become entirely meaningless... Ask the dead what means anything to them and the answer is always silence...

I can easily answer your question... Good things never happen to bad people... What may seem good to good people and what good people can clearly enjoy is not enjoyed by bad people for what makes all people bad is the simple blindness they suffer -to good, and the general want of sense of the matter... Good people do good fully aware of what they do and why they do it... As Socrates said: Knowledge is Virtue.... Vice is the child of ignorance...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Quote:

Good things never happen to bad people

There are no bad people, and there are no good people. These are labels we put on people's actions. No one is all good or all bad.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Good things never happen to bad people

There are no bad people, and there are no good people. These are labels we put on people's actions. No one is all good or all bad.

There are good people and there are bad people according to the moral forms we judge ourselves and others by... While not putting too much into our moral judgements we can hardly live without them, and the fact remains that we value our lives, and the lives of others as having great meaning, and that all that we consider bad, including people who are bad, have a negative effect on our lives...Moral forms are not arbetrary or mere abstractions... We have them, and talk about them because we find them necessary to guide our proper judgment of reality, of behaviors that either help us to or hinder us from our goals of long and good life...Good and bad are not absolutes or even true forms, but they do represent certain conditions or qualities relative to human life...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Spot on! If there were no moral code, all societies would live in chaos. Murder, rape, and stealing would be allowed.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Any moral code is a result of social negotiation. Murder, rape and stealing are not allowed because it is the wish of the majority that this is how it should be. That is how these acts are classified to be "bad", and it is all relative.
To kill someone is considered bad, but some countries have legal euthanasia, in which case killing someone is a good deed.
If you steal a car to get your injured friend to the hospital before he dies, that is a good act.

Quote:

There are good people and there are bad people according to the moral forms we judge ourselves and others by

Subjective judgments. Someone is a bad person in your eyes for crashing a plane into a building. In another person's eyes this is a good person who gave his life in a war against a superior force. A martyr and a hero. The person himself didn't do it to hurt people, even though that was a result of his actions. His motivation was to help those who shared his view of things. Was he a bad person for believing in the wrong things? What if the things you believe in turn out to be hurting others, does that make you a bad person?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

You're adding conditions to outright killing, and not voluntary. There's a huge difference. Why is killing during war acceptable? There are rules even during wars which makes some killing illegal. Some governments kill regardless of acceptable moral standards established by most cultures. You need to understand there are differences that are "good and/or bad," since that's the basis of this discussion.

Provide any one incident of killing, raping, or stealing; we can then determine whether it's good or bad according to generally accepted standards of morals.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That's just it. Each incident is different. There is no "form" that applies to them all. Good person, bad person, those are subjective opinions, and in deciding how an event is to be understood and interpreted, it becomes a matter of which moral considerations should apply.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

For each person, it may be subjective, but there are moral codes that are standardized for most cultures. Murder, fraud, rape, and robbery are not tolerated by most regardless of personal moral codes.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, but they are worked out over time, with effort. Moral codes develop in time with the social welfare of a society.
In the US, letting a man starve on the street is morally tolerated, and that is reflected in the welfare system of the nation. The state isn't legally obliged to provide someone with a place to live if they cannot do it by themselves. In Norway, it is not tolerated, it's considered immoral, which is reflected in the welfare system where the state is legally obligated to provide a home for those who cannot do it by themselves. Of course, that doesn't mean that there are no homeless people in Norway, merely that the moral code here holds that there should be none, so that is what we work towards.
The same welfare system provides us with free health care. Cancer might ruin your life, but it will not ruin your finances, as it might if you get it in the US without proper health insurance.

So, both of these respective cultures have a moral code that reflects the general mindset of those who live there. These "standarized moral codes" are negotiated socially with regard to the personal moral code of everyone who has a right to weigh in.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

So? What difference does that make? How else do you expect morals to be developed? Over night? The development of laws are the same; they are processed over time in an attempt to improve it. Yes, they are somewhat influenced by the culture, but what else do you expect?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Nothing else. I was objecting to Fido's absolutism.

0 Replies

Toughest Philosophical Questions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know