20
   

Purpose of human life

 
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 02:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
And what would life without knowledge be???


Fido, you seem to be saying that acknowledging "we do not know" is not knowledge. Fact is, it may be the most certain of all supposed "knowledge" we humans have.
To be Frank; and sceptical, it is the admission of human ignorance that is at the root of what we do know, can count on, and to an extent, verify... Our problems do not result from what we can know, but what we can never know, and yet must act on the presumption of knowing... All true forms and ideas represent some bit of knowledge that is finite, and definable... All moral forms, what some may properly call transendent concepts, like: God, or Existence, or Justice, or Liberty, or Happiness are at times a spur in our sides, and a thorn in our collective foot... No matter how many examples of justice we may see, justice is infinte, and so nothing from the past will tell us what justice will be tomorrow... And that knowledge, of what we may know and never know is lost to most people because most people seem to want it one way or the other, to say we can never know anything, or that we can know everything... In fact, if you and I dispute about justice we should first decide how much we want the other in our lives, and how important is our mutual survival, and settling that, arriving at a definition of justice between ourselves should be easy... Moral forms are defined as needed, and otherwise are nothing but pain and headache to those who think we should all already know what they are... What is the situation??? Who are the players??? What is the problem??? Do you know what I mean???
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 02:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
It has echoed through hisory in all times of social demoralization since the Greeks and Romans comed up wiff it...


Well, Fido, there certainly is a lot we humans do not know. And I see less harm than good that comes from recognizing and acknowledging that.

The "just get on with it"...can be interpreted to mean that we continue trying to understand (if not actually know) what is going on in existence.
I am reading a very good little book on the subject if you would like some quotations, and believe it or not, I bought the gd thing by the pound, and perhaps 40 cents a pound at that... And it is a wealth of knowledge... And the shame of it is, that if I did not buy that book, it would have been sliced up and recycled for pennies... Educating a worthless person is like tossing pebbles at a dome... And that is a quotation too, though its author's name escapes me...It is as though what people buy when they buy a formal education is a process where knowledge is gorged upon so that no one can enjoy the flavor of it, while people like myself who only get to taste the scraps dine on glory...It makes me sad that I have so little time and money and space for books when knowledge beyond my reached is sold to a shredder for pennies...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 02:46 pm
@Fido,
The thought of any books being destroyed bothers me more than I can describe. Fahrenheit 451 may be a great book...but I shudder when thinking about it.

So, yeah, I do know what you mean.

"Knowledge" is always a tough discussion.

I think Richard Feynman said it best when he said (paraphrased): "I know what it means to really know something...and there are very few things I truly know."
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 05:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
"Knowledge" is always a tough discussion.


Now that's a promising shift Frank ! Smile

But remember that Feynman had no time for philosophers whom he likened to "bemused intellectual tourists scratching their heads at the strange practices of scientists"
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 06:16 pm
@dattaswami cv,
dattaswami cv wrote:

Purpose of human life

In the materialistic plane one person says that the aim of his life is to achieve a particular post and then help his family members. Some other person says that the aim of his life is to serve the mankind. We appreciate the second aim as higher than the first one. The highest aim of the human life can be known only in the spiritual plane. The sole aim of this creation is pleasing God through the entertainment. Every human being is a part of the creation and so the same aim applies to every human being also. The human being becomes fruitful if it serves the Lord and pleases the Lord through the service. Service means the sacrifice of work and sacrifice of the fruit of the work. Service is the proof of the real love.

The mother serves her child by sacrificing lot of work like giving bath, dressing etc., for years together continuously. The father serves the child by sacrificing the fruit of all his hard work to the child. It is a clear practical point that the proof of the real love is only service. If you serve your family you love your family. If you serve the entire world you love the creation. If you serve the creator, you love the creator. It is a very simple point.

Love is the attraction of mind towards anybody or anything. When the illness attacks the body you take so much care to serve your body. You love your body. Similarly you serve your father, mother, wife and children because your mind is attracted towards them. What is the first pre-requisite for this love? When you love your child, you are aware that a particular small living being is your child and you have the differentiating knowledge of your child from other children who are similar. Similarly, when you love God you must be aware of the form of God, who must be differentiated from other forms as your child is differentiated from other children. You are identifying your child by certain special characteristics like shape of the face, voice etc; you are not recognizing your child by the clothes, which it puts on. Other children put on such clothes also. Similarly, you must distinguish the Creator from the creation and then only love the creator. You cannot love the entire creation as the creator. Do you love all the children as your own children?

Therefore, the pre-requisite of love is the true knowledge and the inseparable identifying characteristics of an object by which you get attracted towards it. Therefore, what is the real form of God? And how it differs from other forms? What are the inseparable identifying characteristics of God? The answers for these questions constitute the detailed true knowledge of God. Only such true knowledge generates attraction and love. When you know the separate special details of Bombay, which are not seen in any other city, then only you are attracted to Bombay and like to see it.

Before proceeding to the identifying true knowledge of God, you must also know the purpose of your attraction towards an object. You love your child, and there is no purpose in it. You also love a doctor when you are ill. But that love is not real. It is not love at all. It is only artificial apparent love exhibited for a purpose. You want the doctor to help you. Therefore, true love is that when there is no purpose in it. False love is that in which purpose is present. Generally almost all the people love God because God is omni-potent. He has miraculous powers to do anything, which is impossible for any body on this earth. When a problem comes and when one fails to solve it by all the means existing in this world, one starts loving God to solve that unique problem. Therefore, you love the position or power of God and not the God. A poet shows lot of love and appreciation on a king in his spontaneous poetry because the poet loves the power and the wealth of the king. He expects the king to donate some land or to give him some money after being pleased with his poems. The poet does not love the person who is the king. He loves the king only. Will he write the same poems if the king looses his kingdom and becomes a beggar? In his poetry the poet praised that the king is very beautiful with sweet voice and infinite wisdom. These qualities still remain with the king even if he has become the beggar. But the poet does not praise the same qualities of that beggar because the beggar cannot donate anything to him. The post of the king and the kingdom are separable characteristics, whereas the qualities are inseparable characteristics.

You can easily identify the person by these inseparable characteristics and if your love on Him is real, you will love him whether he is a king or a beggar. Are you not loving your son and praise him whether he serves you or not? Sita garlanded and married Rama who will be the future king of Ayodhya. The love of Sita may be on Rama only or may be on the kingdom of Ayodhya for which she can become queen or may be both put together. Rama tested her love by discarding the kingdom and by going to the forest. Sita followed Rama to the forest. Her love was only on Rama and not on the kingdom. Ravana further tested this. Ravana offered her to become the queen. But she refused. Therefore, the love on God should be analyzed and should be decided whether God is loved or His omni-potent miraculous power is loved for our advantage. Some people want to take advantage in this world and some others want to take the advantage in the upper world so that they can be protected from the hell. In both cases the love on God is not true. It is only the love on his associated power. Sankara says that the true love on God should not have any desire related to this world or to the upper world (Ihaamutra Phala Viragah). If the love is on the power of the God only what is the use of the real form of God or the inseparable characteristics of the God?

The poet loves anybody as the king. For him anybody on the thrown is beautiful and is very wise. In such case if the king donates the desired land or cash by seeing the poem written by a poet, the poet does not bother to see or talk with the king. Therefore, when we love God's power for some advantage, we need not worry about His form or in seeing or talking with God. You can just chant the prayers. He responds to your prayers and your desire is fulfilled. In such case one need not see the God and the God also does not want to see his or her bloody face.

EDIT: MODERATOR: FIXED NONPRINTING CHARACTER


This whole thing you present here misses one crucial aspect. When you repeat the word serve, I personally don't see that as an actual explanation but instead I see your word as more of a obligation. Let me try to explain what I mean.

Let's take your concept of someone serving god. What is their motivation? Why would a god need or require servitude? It wouldn't so you would argue that the person is just showing their gratitude for what the god has provided, ie. existence. I say no, this is not actually what is happening. Why am I saying that? Because what if that person does not show any gratitude? What happens? Nothing? God doesn't change nor respond to the person for taking that position? Many would argue no, that they would be treated differently. This reveals a fundamental error in your reasoning. Instead you are not saying a person is serving a god, but instead they are obligated to serve. That is different and a very important difference.

The same is true for a parent. Not all parents gladly sacrifice their time and energy to support their children. Some parents care not to give up their time and actually feel more obligated (I bet hesitantly) to do so.

So your whole write up is one sided and I bet I know why. You are trying to promote an idea which is not a reality because you think it is necessary. Repeat some thing enough times people will take it to be true when it is not.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 06:19 pm
@fresco,
Hey Fresco.

Feynman was one of my favorite characters. He never failed to amuse and charm an audience when he had one...and he tried very hard to have one as often as possible. I think he was being interviewed by Bill Moyers when he made the comment...and I am perplexed as to why it is not included in his Online quotes. It was a beauty...and he delivered it with that elfish twinkle he so often used.

I never realized he was not fond of philosophers. Seems someone like Feynman would be very fond of them. They aren't actually doing science....but they sure seem to be a useful adjunct, because the ask the kinds of questions scientists like to work on.
MrsVISHOUS2012
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 06:55 pm
@Fido,
nope it's that really small thing you try to pass off as a reproducing tool.
Don't message me asshole.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 12:54 am
@Frank Apisa,
I seem to remember an interview with Feynman regarding his celebrated "diagrams" in which which some particles traveled "backwards in time". Feynman said something like "I don't need to explain it...it works...go and ask a philosopher".

0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 06:27 am
@MrsVISHOUS2012,
MrsVISHOUS2012 wrote:

nope it's that really small thing you try to pass off as a reproducing tool.
Don't message me asshole.
Another day and another idiot I can add to the number who can kiss my ass... And; I will have you know that my reproducing tool is a HP Deskjet. and not all that small...
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 08:09 am

I posted this on another thread but I think it applies here too...
0 Replies
 
MrsVISHOUS2012
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 08:33 am
@Fido,
*rolls eyes* good luck with that. bye
0 Replies
 
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 09:15 am
Can't we all stop what we're doing and dance like it was a musical???
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 09:21 am
Bollywood?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 09:45 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Bollywood?
No!!! Belly Bop..
0 Replies
 
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 09:46 am
@Setanta,
How about sound of music/westside story
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 09:58 am
@Procrustes,
Naw, that's tired old bullshit . . .

I was thinking of something exciting, like "Jai Ho". . .



Bollywood still does the big dance numbers . . . Busby Berkeley still lives!
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 10:07 am
@Setanta,
Your right. Bollywood does bring it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 10:09 am
That's the stuff ! ! !
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 10:12 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

That's the stuff ! ! !
My idea of fun, too... Billions and billions of Indians who cannot figure out how to use condoms; and think they can all live in one apartment, dancing to the same beat!!!...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 10:30 am
The true meaning of life . . . big dance numbers . . .

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Automatic Ontology Generation - Question by elang
An Ontology Ontology - Question by stephs-notes
Ontology for publications - Question by youdontknowme1
Can we use ontology for? - Question by megh500
Commercial use of ontology - Question by mtrusewich
Protege Ontology - Question by Monstruletz
Instances of the ontology - Discussion by sathiyab
semantic in ontology - Question by sabrouna
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2021 at 09:55:11