There is no "meaning of life"
Doktor S wrote:Considering your intent seems to be to forward working definitions for purposes of objective discussion, you sure have tipped the hand in your favor with your selective and dishonest definitions.
Sneaky, but hardly clever.
dictionary.com wrote:
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Quote:
su·per·sti·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-stshn)
n.
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2.
1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
3. Idolatry.
As you can see, referencing a WHOLE entry for 'superstition' instead of just a snippet that supports your case should leave you with a very different conclusion.
However, although objectively synonymous they can be subjectively distinguished from each other, hence the need for two separate words.
Faith is 'correct' superstition. (in the mind of the believer)
Hypocrisy? Sure, but that is encumbent to the whole christian position.
How satisfying it must be for you to be nasty, and make personal attacks at my character. And how convenient it is for you to ignore my straightforwardness at the very beginning, when I stated my source:
(referencing WORDNET DICTIONARY):
To accommodate your crass rudeness and common rationality, however, I will politely oblige the posting of your source, dictionary.com, in my next post. If you would be so kind, please refrain from further comment toward me, until then.
No, I won't allow you to police the frequency of my posting, but nice try.
yes, I saw you post the source, that being wordnet, that wasn't my contention.
The contention was that you took bits and pieces of definitions that suited you, while ignoring the rest.
If you found what I said to be a slight against your characture, and claim your dishonesty was unintentional..then fine, granted.
Your ARGUMENT is dishonest. Now it is no longer ad hominem..happy?
There is no "meaning of life"
Doktor S wrote:No, I won't allow you to police the frequency of my posting, but nice try.
I simply requested, and did not command.
Doktor S wrote:The contention was that you took bits and pieces of definitions that suited you, while ignoring the rest.
As anyone of sound mind can tell, I was ever so careful to include every part of every definition of each word in my dictionary. You, nevertheless, are comparing one dictionary to another, which to a limited extent, is fine. On the other hand, it is blatantly irresponsible and irrational of you to claim that I've omitted anything from my source, by comparing it to your source. Your conclusion is a falsehood.
I am not going to reference every single dictionary available. If you would like to address your source, then I will graciously reply to it. But your accusations are obviously incorrect and unacceptable.
For the moment, there are things I have to tend to, in my life today. I do not have the convenience to stay at the computer all day long and always answer every reply instantly. It may take a few hours, or even a day or two. Who knows. But I promise you, I will return and get on with the conversation in due time.
Thank you.
Back to the thread's question about the meaning of life. The issue is, as I see it, not whether or not there is meaning or are meanings in our lives--we experience them all the time. The issue is their source: do they come from God, or some other supernatural source or are they OUR creations. I vote for the latter. No meanings (even geometric axioms) are a priori. At the most they are generated by the structure of our neurology and our cultural conditioning. But they do not exist independent of human action and makeup.
Sorry to be such a fuddy duddie.
I submit, PoetS, that you have not objectively differentiated faith from superstition, but essentially through the definitions you've cited clearly have equated the 2 concepts, demonstrating they be subjective, afoundational beliefs, independent of logic, reason, or evidence, and I submit also that you have without foundation laid charge of ad hominem against another participant in this thread. Faith and superstition are purely subjective, wholly emotional constructs, and your replies in this regard have been subjectively personal, founded in nought but individual preference and emotion.
Poet,
Quote:
I was ever so careful to include every part of every definition of each word in my dictionary.
Quote:
Definition: (n) an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear
Yes, this is the definition of superstition in it's entirety, not just one line that suits you. Silly me!
ok well, i only got to like the first 10 posts, so if this topic changed after that (which i hate), i apologize now.
But, this is sort of off subject.. i know im a hypocrite
If I want to go an do something with my life, lets use and example like: Murder as many people as possible, then kill myself, why wont I do it, whats stopping me. What if I want to do something so particular, and with no doubts, why am I not doing it?
In my case, its running away. I want to leave and go to the most barren, deserted place, and live by myself until I die, and the only thing i can really think of that would stop me would be te love of my friends and family, but... It dosnt seem like that strong of an attribute, that would keep me from persevering to my dreams.
what does anyone have to say about this?
Quote:
If I want to go an do something with my life, lets use and example like: Murder as many people as possible, then kill myself, why wont I do it, whats stopping me. What if I want to do something so particular, and with no doubts, why am I not doing it?
You are not doing it because you do
not wish to, and
do have doubts.
If that is what you really wanted to do and you had no doubts about doing it, you would do it. You would be far from the first to walk that road.
Quote:
In my case, its running away. I want to leave and go to the most barren, deserted place, and live by myself until I die, and the only thing i can really think of that would stop me would be te love of my friends and family, but... It dosnt seem like that strong of an attribute, that would keep me from persevering to my dreams.
Again, if this is what you
really wanted, you would do it or have done it already.
The meaning of life is reproduction.
My life can have other meanings if I want but the only thing "life" cares about is it's own continuence.
Eorl, you do, of course, mean this metaphorically. Life does not "care" about anything. Nature is profoundly indifferent, but its "nature" is such that we see certain regularities that we call "laws". But it is either "mindless" or of a nature that transcends both what we call mind-ness and mindlessness.
JLNobody wrote:Life does not "care" about anything.
Exempting the Gaia Hypothesis. Not that I plan on arguing it's merits or lack of same.
No, the Gaia hypothesis only says that there are feedback mechanisms such that living things effect the terrestrial environment in such a way that the environment remains life-supporting. It doesn't say there is a "goddess", or something that's aware or self-aware, or there is intent, or caring. Those interpretations were put on it by people who ran well beyond what was propounded in Lovelock's Gaia, or what the science says.
JLNobody wrote:Eorl, you do, of course, mean this metaphorically. Life does not "care" about anything. Nature is profoundly indifferent, but its "nature" is such that we see certain regularities that we call "laws". But it is either "mindless" or of a nature that transcends both what we call mind-ness and mindlessness.
Yes, "cares" was probably a bad choice, but life does seem to be it's own purpose, although usually not a concious one. All forms of life strive to survive at least to the point of replication by many different mechanisms. (Some individuals only apparent purpose is to enable other members of it's species to reproduce.)
I agree that survival and self-replication seems to be a fundamental "purpose" of life forms. But I also think that the Cosmos is much grander than we can imaging. I wouldn't want to bet the house on its "experential numbness." But I would also not want to be that it is conscious in any sense that we can imagine.
"Mysterious" is its best description.
Can't argue with that JL
I just think life's purpose (life) is part of it's definition. Lifeforms lacking a strong enough mechanism to do so lose out to others who do, and so cease to continue. No real "will" required.
I love that link Amigo.
My favourite bit is the title "The Meaning of Life" and underneath "(Now available in Spanish!)"
zeroh wrote: I want to leave and go to the most barren, deserted place, and live by myself until I die
Sometimes I feel the same. Its because I'm disillusioned with the human race and live in a place where I don't think they can teach me much about the things that seem important to me.
I know that travelling is a good idea - go find people who have some greater insight (or whatever) that's worth hanging around for -
That way you could stay in contact with your family (no guilt there)
And keep an eye open for your barren land while you're on your travels!
Just my thoughts on what you said zeroh
I reckon the question "meaning of life" isnt even a valid question. Its like saying "what is the meaning of my foot". The question is in the same domain as "why is a mouse when it spins" and "why do more people watch television than I do".
Food for thought
