The flawed concepts of meaning and purpose in human existence

It may be infinitely evolving, but we cannot know that.
At each moment that which we can identify as a thing must be complete.

"Its circularly pattern repeating itself" nice Nietzsche-ism, but complete conjecture.

"Thus not contained or justified in any way can have any rule whatever rule you wish it to be to work in any direction at all"

Again there are no rules but those in which we impose.

Im not going to get into a semantical debate over the definition of "evolve"
I think it is pretty clear how this writer is using the word.

"A constant state of change" would be my meager interpretation. Which again negates completeness, because at any given second the thing is already something else. Now you can say that at any moment it is complete in that moment and i would agree with that. But the debate on "completeness" sprung from the writer's question what is the purpose of purpose?

So technically if we are always in a "state of completeness" then why mention mention purpose or meaning? We embody it by being the artists display, but no real functional END PURPOSE is necessary because here is no end.

Which again negates completeness, because at any given second the thing is already something else. Now you can say that at any moment it is complete in that moment and i would agree with that. But the debate on "completeness" sprung from the writer's question what is the purpose of purpose?

So technically if we are always in a "state of completeness" then why mention mention purpose or meaning? We embody it by being the artists display, but no real functional END PURPOSE is necessary because there is no end.

sorry about the typos..

We mention purpose and meaning because we are rational beings.

I'm not sure what an END PURPOSE (caps yours) is. But if it is the purpose
of all creation, then -- barring divine revelation -- all we can do is speculate. And the speculation of any one purpose is as good as another.

No problem.

Let me back up for one second, technically there is never a moment in the infinite break down of time where something ever is anything.

Zeno's Paradox deals with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#The_arrow_paradox

It basically says that if you keep breaking something down infinitely you never reach a solid point or "moment". So if that is true than there can be no real "state of completeness"

But common sense tells one that the arrow is in fact moving.

Totally agreed, however what this writer seems to be doing, which is evident in the title, ("A discourse on the flawed concepts of meaning and purpose") is to get us to look at existence from an aesthetic point of view, If there is a divine creator (artist) then there need be no meaning to his/her/its work. That is the nature of art. So if we look at existence through this lens of artistry, it becomes apparent that our quest for meaning and purpose is an exercise in futility perpetuated by human ignorance.

Of course we have to accept the "apparent reality" that the arrow is moving, but logically speaking it shouldn't. So what then do we make of our logic and common sense. Are they to be trusted when such paradox's exist?

But do we agree that the nature of art is to be without meaning or purpose?
Some schools of art have held that to be true, while others have not.

Well that is where subjective reasoning comes in. It really is next to impossible to give a solid definition of anything much less art.

But if we simplify it we can see that the artists only intent at times can be to merely display beauty. Which then makes the art have no real knowable meaning or purpose.

I think the aspect of the "absurd" in which the writer gravitates towards is how he builds his case. With the absurd being apparent in all things. That is the foundation of his idea in which art/life has no inherent meaning or purpose, but also correlating that the absurd is beautiful.

I just think it's a fascinating idea that gives a fresh angle on an old human problem.

You are responsible to yourself, the rest of that bullshit is mental masturbation and social pressures to conform. You can take virtually every single declarative sentence in those paragraphs and present data that contridicts the statements.

The author reminds me of a pretentious college freshman all full of himself after downing his first bottle of cheap wine while reading Art Digest.

I think that you are so caught up in the intellectualization of the topic that you can't see the forest for the trees. The only meaning or purpose of human existence is the one we make for ourselves. Once you start throwing around exterior purposes you move in "on-the-other-hand" land.

Tut tvam asi.

That's it.

"You can take virtually every single declarative sentence in those paragraphs and present data that contridicts the statements".

Please do show how. Also wouldn't that go for most of philosophy? And since your so "data" happy, what makes you think your data is reliable?


"The only meaning or purpose of human existence is the one we make for ourselves."

Please provide data for this statement.

"You are responsible to yourself, the rest of that bullshit is mental masturbation and social pressures to conform"

What are you talking about? The responsibility is that of ARTISTRY, Not life in general. Was the title not clear enough?

One of the biggest things i hate about "intellectual forums" are that most people that end up debating an issue, do it from an extreme bias and dogmatic arrogance.

Im NOT saying all of you have done this, its just something I notice when getting on these type of forums. How sad that we live in a world where we can't be civilized and discuss ideas without unnecessary mudslinging. What's funny is that these are the same people who fight for "tolerance" and claim they have an "open mind".

What a joke.

You have posted this question on multiple forums. As a matter of interest, have you had any positive responses ?

You're absolutely right. Of course, truth be known, from time to time I've been guilty of coming on with both guns a-blazin'.

Most innovative thinking is not readily received, history has shown that.

Thats mighty honest of you to admit that.

I just think that if we are going to learn anything in this life than we should truly give an open mind to fresh and abstract ideas. It seems like a lot of us are to busy trying to prove a point.

Aren't we all trying to find more truth? Thats what the dialectic argument in philosophy is for. We come together and debate with the hopes of learning from one another.

My hope is that we learn how to do that. Maybe there is a forum out there for that.