Why do we exist?

@Mahmoudgh,

Mahmoudgh wrote:

But this was my first time to meet people mocking at me just because asked them frankly to simplify their English.

i don't think anyone mocked you, it's hard for native english speakers to sometimes simplify their words when the person is not in front of them, perhaps you could indicate which posters response you need help understanding

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Let's see what the dictionary and the rest of the world have to say about 'insane'.

Insane - adjective

1. Not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.
2. Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.
3. Utterly senseless: an insane plan.

Now let's look at the definitions more carefully.(With commentary from yours truly, free of charge Wink

)

1. Not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.

Well, obviously NOT sane. Hence the IN contained in the word INsane. Thanks for clearing that one up for us Mr. Dictionary. What the hell is a 'sound' mind, and who is deeming it 'sound'? The same person with a 'sound' mind would like everyone to think that his mind and all minds like his are 'sound'? Doesn't that seem a little biased to you? How do you know if someone is mentally 'deranged' and why are you pointing it out? Maybe you're the one who's 'mentally deranged' for pointing it out! Apparently this mentally deranged person has stopped you from going about your day in its would be fashion, for no reason other than the fact that you had to point out his 'being deranged'.

2. Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.

Again, who's defining these characteristics and why? We already went through 'deranged', same would go for 'insane actions' I suppose. An insane asylum is just that! Only the ones who are truly 'insane' are the ones who built the asylum. Not the people in it.

3. Utterly senseless: an insane plan.

What sort of plan would 'make sense' and to whom? Why are we concerned with 'making sense/not making sense'? If you had been all alone your whole life, would you ever worry about 'making sense'?

Call me insane if you like, but just remember this.

Look up at me and see a god, look down on me and see a peasant, but look straight at me and see your 'self'.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Mahmoudgh wrote:

I do admitt that I'm in lack of knowledg. May because I'm still young, may because philosophy is not my interest. But that is not a defect as I know that there are people who I can contact all over the world and gain from them. But this was my first time to meet people mocking at me just because asked them frankly to simplify their English. Thanks for those who believed me. I'll leave this site and will never come back. Will not recommened it to any of my friends.
yours,
Ghada

Nobody mocked you.

Krumple wrote:

As for my purpose, it is to live, because I am alive. I don't need or require some profound goal or endeavor. There will come a day when I no longer, think, feel or experience anything ever again. So I attempt to make each day my purpose to just be me and what ever impact that has, it doesn't matter to me. I think adding in any sort of fictitious gods or creation stories or some kind of religious purpose only cheapens this life. Makes people forget about this life and they focus on a life that will never come.

Personally, I dont believe in dead, only in transition. Then I die, its my human life that ends, but I, myself, will continue to exist, but what will be the nature of this continued existence I dont know. Perhaps I wont even notice that there was a transition.

This belief is more or less based in the good old "everything is an ilusion". Human life is an ilusion, so its only natural that human dead wont end my existence, only my human life.

3 Replies

@manored,

Are you familiar with the philosophy of Alan Watts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15QW2lTAZmA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuPSs4aaweU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2M9dfYZ3cs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzvGCsCB7wc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzYk48fm7o4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRZrRMdQ43w&feature=related

Love these videos, especially what he's pointing out.

1 Reply

@manored,

Now, there´s a vision who actually makes some sense !

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

JPLosman0711 wrote:

Are you familiar with the philosophy of Alan Watts?

No, not really. I may try watching em later, if I remember (too much noise where I am right now).

0 Replies

If we didn't exist we could not ask this question--why do we exist?--but we do exist. Perhaps that's only so we can ask this questions AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE WE DO.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Maybe 'meaning' is just a thought.

0 Replies

@Mahmoudgh,

Mahmoudgh wrote:

When I think about other creatures around me, I see that it's created for a very specific purpose. The sun, the moon, the day, the night, the plants, the water, the mountains, everything is there for a specific purpose and I believe they are all there to serve us. And I feel they are happy and peaceful knowing what for they are there. What for we ourselves are there? What for?

I think your OP and the title of the post itself are two distinct thoughts altogether. The OP talks about teleology, while the title brings up the question of why do we exists, which may be taken in a teleological light or not. It is ambiguous.

I exist because of my parents procreating. I continue to exist because of specific biological functions, all of which are healthy and continue to be so. Also I have not, as of yet, run into any problems to which my life would be in mortal danger, and a potentially resulting death.

So... what are the premises to which you derived the conclusion that everything is here (aside from us) for a specific purpose?

0 Replies

Why does ANYTHING exist? and What is existence?
The question, Why do WE exist, begs for a romantic answer.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

An answer that focuses on the human being is likely to end up with a romanic story, such as We exist because God was lonely.... A better answer--as far as I'm concerned--would also address the question, Why do snails exist?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

An answer that focuses on the human being is likely to end up with a romanic story, such as We exist because God was lonely.... A better answer--as far as I'm concerned--would also address the question, Why do snails exist?

0 Replies

@manored,

manored wrote:

]Personally, I dont believe in dead, only in transition. Then I die, its my human life that ends, but I, myself, will continue to exist, but what will be the nature of this continued existence I dont know. Perhaps I wont even notice that there was a transition.

Alright, but just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean that it is not true. Reality isn't how you want it to be and does reality support your idea? Nothing that I see or have seen supports your idea, however my idea IS supported by reality. I have never seen anything that transitions from one life to another and if it does, it is not even the same thing it was prior so how could you even make the claim that one thing can transition yet cease being itself in the process. A little silly to say that something can transition then. I am not even sure what "gets" transitioned then, you would have to explain much further by what you mean.

manored wrote:

This belief is more or less based in the good old "everything is an ilusion". Human life is an ilusion, so its only natural that human dead wont end my existence, only my human life.

Sure it could. The illusion that gets spoken of is not something "magical", it is a standpoint that our idea of our existence is based purely on the fact that our brains are functioning in such a way that we give rise to the idea of a self. A self that really is nothing more than a few neurons arranged in just the right way as to allow us to self recognize. The buddhist and zen patriarchs knew this concept quite well yet people refuse to accept it because their attachment to their existence hurts too much to realize that once you are dead you are dead and that is it, game over, don't pass go, you won't collect any additional experience points.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

...one could well equally argue that you die a little bit every day while you change and evolve, that is, as you pointed out, your very notion of self is an illusion constructed in your brain within a false sense of continuity...one just needs to be reminded on the several play "roles" one goes on through life to see the multiple personality´s within ourselves coming up in different periods or contextual circumstances...it is even well know by psychology these days that when one learns a new language one entirely develops a new personality...many other examples could be provided but suffices to say the point is made...the true extension on meaning of words as "dead" or "self" has only a relative scope of depth beyond which we simply don´t know on what we really are talking about...I for instance, am well aware that I am not any more the person I was 20 years ago...not that all is gone, but simply that I am not the same, I´ve changed...in that strict sense the "old" me is dead...transition at this light is actually a perfect word to describe the phenomena (the changing that is). Death as we think of it is just a more radical form of change.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...one could well equally argue that you die a little bit every day while you change and evolve, that is, as you pointed out, your very notion of self is an illusion constructed in your brain within a false sense of continuity...one just needs to be reminded on the several play "roles" one goes on through life to see the multiple personality´s within ourselves coming up in different periods or contextual circumstances...it is even well know by psychology these days that when one learns a new language one entirely develops a new personality...many other examples could be provided but suffices to say the point is made...the true extension on meaning of words as "dead" or "self" has only a relative scope of depth beyond which we simply don´t know on what we really are talking about...I for instance, am well aware that I am not any more the person I was 20 years ago...not that all is gone, but simply that I am not the same, I´ve changed...in that strict sense the "old" me is dead...transition at this light is actually a perfect word to describe the phenomena (the changing that is). Death as we think of it is just a more radical form of change.

Indeed. My neural cells are always dying, but I do not feel any impact, change or loss in my conscious experience because of it. I do not feel death would be any different.

Krumple wrote:

manored wrote:
]Personally, I dont believe in dead, only in transition. Then I die, its my human life that ends, but I, myself, will continue to exist, but what will be the nature of this continued existence I dont know. Perhaps I wont even notice that there was a transition.

Alright, but just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean that it is not true. Reality isn't how you want it to be and does reality support your idea? Nothing that I see or have seen supports your idea, however my idea IS supported by reality. I have never seen anything that transitions from one life to another and if it does, it is not even the same thing it was prior so how could you even make the claim that one thing can transition yet cease being itself in the process. A little silly to say that something can transition then. I am not even sure what "gets" transitioned then, you would have to explain much further by what you mean.

I think it all starts at existence itself. Existence itself defies the rules of logic. I mean, all that exists must be created, but who or what created the first thing? Existence itself is an unexplainable absurd.

And the notion of that it could end seens even more absurd. How can something that exists without being created end?

And existance and consciousness are the same thing. Thats about how I get to "I cannot end".

I hope that made sense =)

Krumple wrote:

manored wrote:

This belief is more or less based in the good old "everything is an ilusion". Human life is an ilusion, so its only natural that human dead wont end my existence, only my human life.

Sure it could. The illusion that gets spoken of is not something "magical", it is a standpoint that our idea of our existence is based purely on the fact that our brains are functioning in such a way that we give rise to the idea of a self. A self that really is nothing more than a few neurons arranged in just the right way as to allow us to self recognize. The buddhist and zen patriarchs knew this concept quite well yet people refuse to accept it because their attachment to their existence hurts too much to realize that once you are dead you are dead and that is it, game over, don't pass go, you won't collect any additional experience points.

I think we are speaking of a different ilusion here. You seem to be saying that people think they exist but are in fact just some eletric signals going about. I am saying that everything we perceive is... couldnt we just be dreaming? We die in dreams, and yet that does not end our existence. The world is not a reliable source of information. Just because everyone dies and never gives signs of continuing to exist, thats no reason to believe the same will happen to the self.

I dont know what will happen then I die, I only know my consciousness wont end.

1 Reply

@manored,

manored wrote:

I think it all starts at existence itself. Existence itself defies the rules of logic. I mean, all that exists must be created,

"all that exists must be created"

I have a problem with that premise. How can you know that? Seems to me that you are defining it that way without anything to substantiate it. It's like me claiming invisible cars exist because cars are engineered so invisible cars must exist.

manored wrote:

but who or what created the first thing? Existence itself is an unexplainable absurd.

Well there is another flaw in your second premise there. Since you are starting to ask the question with a who or what, it becomes a loaded question directly implying that there would have to be a "who". In other words you are begging the question and that is a fallacy. Your premise loses all credibility when you assume that something has to be created and that there must be a creator.

manored wrote:

And the notion of that it could end seens even more absurd. How can something that exists without being created end?

Another faulty premise. This one is stacked with both of the previous fallacies which makes it basis flawed from the beginning. First you have to prove that in order for something to exist it must be created. Then you have to prove that there is a who behind it if you are going to later use that who to try and convince a person that it is responsible for creating. Neither of which you have done and are instead trying to define it by using this as it's definition which is crazy. A premise that lacks a basis is used for a definition is by all means NOT a definition.

manored wrote:

And existance and consciousness are the same thing. Thats about how I get to "I cannot end".

You go to consciousness being the same thing? Seriously? Nice jump there to something even less convincing.

manored wrote:

I hope that made sense =)

Well I understood your arguments but they don't make any sense.

manored wrote:

I dont know what will happen then I die, I only know my consciousness wont end.

You know? Don't you mean, you have convinced yourself? I doubt that you "know". If you know then you can substantiate it with something but so far you have not so your claim is baseless.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

"all that exists must be created"

Quote:

I have a problem with that premise. How can you know that? Seems to me that you are defining it that way without anything to substantiate it. It's like me claiming invisible cars exist because cars are engineered so invisible cars must exist.

...in full agreement here...

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

manored wrote:
I think it all starts at existence itself. Existence itself defies the rules of logic. I mean, all that exists must be created,

"all that exists must be created"

I have a problem with that premise. How can you know that? Seems to me that you are defining it that way without anything to substantiate it. It's like me claiming invisible cars exist because cars are engineered so invisible cars must exist.

Lets ignore the rest for now, since this is the most fundamental disagreement and I have a feeling we wont be agreeing on it =) (Its a rarity to see discussions like this getting anywhere, what is fine)

Well, there are two possibilities:

Either things need to be created to exist
Or things dont need to be created to exist.

If we consider that things dont need to be created to exist... wouldnt the universe be taken by ultimate chaos, by an infinite number and variety of things coming into being? That would be essentially the same as the universe not existing in the first place.

Do you agree with that?

Krumple wrote:

You know? Don't you mean, you have convinced yourself? I doubt that you "know". If you know then you can substantiate it with something but so far you have not so your claim is baseless.

No. I mean that I know. Its you who thinks that I have convinced myself =)

I have a lot of other "paths" that lead me to the conclusion of that never-ending life is not only real, but inevitable and inescapable, but they are all difficult and confusing to put into words.

You seem to be tied down to the idea of that I fear death, and thus fool myself into believing in afterlife. However, there is also the other side of the coin. Non-existance isnt a bad thing and in fact I believe many people kill themselves to reach non-existance, to end all suffering. But they cant, unless their suffering lies only in their humanity and not in their minds. Because no matter how many times and in how many lifes they kill themselves they will always live. I think that eternal existance is just as terrifying as eternal non-existance.

2 Replies

@manored,

If I understood well, earlier you said that we believe in afterlife because the mind, the self, feels special to us, but that is because we are "machines" made to think so for the sake of our survival. Thats an intriguing idea, however, if you believe that, then you are essentially admiting to be emotionally compromised. I mean, you feel that your mind is special, but you cannot trust this feeling because you are a machine made to feel it, but if you cannot trust this feeling, why would you be able to trust any of your other thoughts? One could argue that you can trust other purely logical thoughts, however human beings arent capable of that, our thoughts are always contamined by emotion. So it seens to me that this idea ultimately backfires, in that you are proving an instrument is not reliable using the instrument itself.

Another thing Id like to bring up: We believe in dead because people die, however how does that prove that we, that is, our mind, dies? That our mind seens to be housed in our brain is not enough reason, our brain can just as easily be the reflection of our mind, rather than the opposite.

0 Replies

Mean A2K wont let me edit my earlier posts for some reason =)

"all that exists must be created"

Isnt that one of the fundaments of logic? That is, in order for something to exist it must have an origin? To me saying that things dont need to have an origin to exist is like saying that two plus two equals five.

2 Replies

Why do we exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know