Philosophy

If something put us here in this universe, this life time, this illusion, whatever, I would like to hear three reasons why we might be in a place like this, without any real answers?

For example -We are here because its all a test of how we will treat each other (which I do not necessarily believe)

-We are here because, this is where we go over and over "reincarnation"

-We are here because, this is all that there is and then we go back to dust and our energy cycles back into the universe until the next ones are put in.

Try re-considering those words "something" and "we". Ostensibly these terms refer to potentially independent (objective) ontological entities. But a transcendent position might be that all "things" are evoked by that form of communicative process termed "language" which seems unique to humans.
This position is an aspect of a view of "reality as a social construction". It may be that terms like "purpose" or "selves" have no more biological significance than they would for ants operating in a holistic colony. Thus anthropocentric questions such as you ask may be no more than epiphenomena of human language.

Damn...you took the words right out of my mouth!

Why are men on this planet?

That's easy.

Because there are WOMEN, here, that's why!

did captain Kirk say that?

Quote:

did captain Kirk say that?

Probably. He was a man, wasn't he?

This position is an aspect of a view of "reality as a social construction".

layman wrote:

Quote:

did captain Kirk say that?

Probably. He was a man, wasn't he?

Well the fact that he loved aliens so much, I kinda wonder if he really was.

Quote:

This position is an aspect of a view of "reality as a social construction".

Got a position on this, Frank? About what reality is, I mean?

You can't cheat Frank, seven of nine wasn't an alien.

Kirk and the Borg ?? You guys need to get a grip on reality !

Who the hell would think this?: ".. all "things" are evoked by that form of communicative process termed "language..."

Curious to see whether the then-non-peer-reviewed postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University Press) would publish a submission which "flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions," Sokal submitted a grand-sounding but completely nonsensical paper entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity."

The journal did in fact publish it, and soon thereafter Sokal then revealed that the article was a hoax in the journal Lingua Franca, arguing that the left and social science would be better served by intellectual underpinnings based on reason. He replied to leftist and postmodernist criticism of the deception by saying that his motivation had been to "defend the Left from a trendy segment of itself."

The editors of Social Text liked my article because they liked its conclusion: that ‘‘the content and methodology of postmodern science provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project’’ [sec. 6]. They apparently felt no need to analyze the quality of the evidence, the cogency of the arguments, or even the relevance of the arguments to the purported conclusion.

But why did I do it? I confess that I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class. And I'm a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them