the meaning of the meaning of life

[greymare]

Originally Posted by Only Special To God

I see that you are the type of person who find humor in someone else's ire and frustration.

God Bless
Ian

Perhaps or perhaps not, Ian. Or is it just that it has all been done and said before and I know that no one likes a debate better than Tao.

Sorry, if I have offended your delicate sensibilites.

[Only Special To God]

Originally Posted by greymare

Perhaps or perhaps not, Ian. Or is it just that it has all been done and said before and I know that no one likes a debate better than Tao.

Sorry, if I have offended your delicate sensibilites.

You didn't offend me Greymare, I just think that maybe you need to work on your vocabulary a little more and think before you type. Besides just typing what you have crossing your mind in that flash of a moment. Your one line zingers just get boring after a while and they just stop being cute and funny (when you are really telling people how you feel). Now they are just old and tiring like the person that is writing them (who is hiding behind them because they really have nothing else to offer to the conversation/topic).

God Bless
Ian

[greymare]

have i just been smacked? ouch, you really hurt this boring, old tired poster. NOT. roflmao.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by StarshipEnterprise

So, I believe that any reason for your choices to matter is completely arbitrary. Does that make me a nihilist? I don't care if I am, I'm just not completely sure what defines one.[/font][/color]

Here's a quote from wiki, in case you are interested in nihilism:

Originally Posted by the Mighty Wiki

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following:

Objective morality does not exist.
No action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another.
In the absence of objective morality, existence has no intrinsic higher meaning or goal.
There is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator.
Even if a higher ruler or creator exists, humanity has no moral obligation to worship them.
The term nihilism is sometimes used synonymously with anomie to denote a general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence.[1]

More here: Nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Only Special To God

Hello Tao,
First off…. I did start my sentence off with IMO……I can not prove it to you Tao, it is a knowing knowledge that I was born with. I can not explain it to you and YES, I do believe! I do not need proof, I can feel it, I can sense and on rare occasions I have seen it with my own eyes.

I am sorry that you do not believe, I am thinking that you are like some people that will only believe when they are on their deathbed (but, there is still hope for you, Tao). I can not make you believe, I can pray for you, which I have already done and will do again. Maybe, that is why you are so angry all the time…..your heart is hard Tao, God is knocking but you have bolted the door so tight that I fear that you will not be able to open it even if you wanted to.

I used the word “Should” for non-believing people like you Tao, but you still took offense. I can not prove to you that God exists, I can only tell you that he does!
God is intangible, like the air that we breathe that keeps us alive.

Believing in God gives us hope, strength and courage to over come the trials and tribulations that are set before us each day and to make us better people. In those times, when we are feeling so down in our lives, when we have no one in our lives to love, when we have no food on our table to feed our children………those times Tao……….(there are numerous situations) in which we feel like no one wants us, no one loves us, and then we pick up the Bible, we read, we pray (for you maybe not). And for a few moments of reading the Bible, we have forgotten our troubles, we are given hope and thoughts about being truly loved and reminded that we are never alone. Also, there are reasons as to why each one of us is here. God does answer, I have told you that before, but I will repeat myself again because you are my elder and I respect you.

God answers our prayers, it may not be immediate, but you must be open to seeing the assistance that is being provided. (ie. You have no money in your pocket, and you are hungry and thirsty. Either, you will find money or someone will offer you food, things like that. Also, on rare occasions there are miracles (you know those things that you can’t see or explain) that do happen.

I am sorry that you are angered and offended. I did not intend either to happen. As, I am not angered or offended at the tone that you have spoken to me in. I like you am entitled to my opinion. I believe in God and you don’t. So, why are you here on a Christian Forum then? Unless, there is a glimmer of belief in your heart, but your mind will not let your heart believe unless it sees something tangible that you can eventually put your hands on.

I am sorry Tao, I really hope and pray that your heart will win the battle over your mind.

God Bless
Ian

Hi Ian,

Moi! Angry!! lol, if you think I can get angry over such inconsequentials then you have yet to get me. Short of putting words in my mouth nothing you say will even irritate, never mind anger me. I merely sought to point out to you that the sentence I quoted back at you, which is well seperated from "IMO" by the "but" you inserted, is in effect telling me and everybody else what you think they should think. Do you not think that arrogant? Do you think me too stupid to formulate my own opinions on such matters?

As for the way you talk to Grey... you appear to me not only be trying to tell us all what we "should" think but here you want to control what we say too! I think you should spend less time praying for me, or anyone, and a little more reflecting on what mutual respect really is. What strikes me on occasions such as this is the weaknesses in an argument being artificially propped up with "believe this", its stinks to me of a desperation to convince yourself, not me.

tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Here's a quote from wiki, in case you are interested in nihilism:



More here: Nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I prefer its more weighty brother:

Existentialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[juantoo3]

Thanks for that Tao!

I’ve been meaning to look into Existentialism, and have just been putting it off. Now seems like an appropriate time.

From your Wiki reference:

A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence. This amounts to the assertion that the outer manifestation (existence) of an entity is more determinative than its inner being (essence). Asserting that "existence precedes essence" is a rebellion against the Platonic Ideas, the Forms, which in Plato's philosophy are the true reality behind appearances of things in the world.

When it is said that man defines himself, it is often perceived as stating that man can "wish" to be something - anything, a bird, for instance - and then be it. According to Sartre's own account, however, this would rather be a kind of bad faith. What is meant by the statement is that man is (1) defined only insofar as he acts and (2) that he is responsible for his actions. To clarify, it can be said that a man who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel man and in that same instance, he (as opposed to his genes, for instance) is defined as being responsible for being this cruel man. Of course, the more positive therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: You can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially.[4]

To claim, then, that existence precedes essence is to assert that there is no such predetermined essence to be found in man. Instead, what one finds if one searches, is the concrete lived life of each individual. As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards."

This sounds to me like an effort to either derail or magnify free-will, I can’t figure out which? I am struggling to understand because I see a contradiction in these last two paragraphs: “since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially,” and “there is no such predetermined essence to be found in man.” It reads to me as elevating free-will self direction, while at the same time downplaying the “essense” of free-will.

Existentialism tends to focus on the question of human existence and the conditions of this existence. What is meant by existence is the concrete life of each individual, and his concrete ways of being in the world. Even though this concrete individual existence must be the primary source of information in the study of man, certain conditions are commonly held to be "endemic" to human existence. These conditions are usually in some way related to the inherent meaninglessness or absurdity of the earth and its apparent contrast with our pre-reflexive lived lives which normally present themselves to us as meaningful.

This sounds to me like a “have ones cake and eat it too” justification. There is no essential need or drive to be ethical except when one is subject to one’s inherent essential need or drive to be ethical…

The existentialist concept of freedom is often misunderstood as a sort of liberum arbitrium where almost anything is possible and where values are inconsequential to choice and action. This interpretation of the concept is often related to the insistence on the absurdity of the world and that there are no absolutely "good" or "bad" values.

However, that there are no values to be found in the world in-itself doesn't mean that there are no values: Each of us usually already has his values before a consideration of their validity is carried through, and it is, after all, upon these values we act.

Are these values essential, or no? I am thinking in terms of the opening joust between essense and existence.

What isn't implied in this account of existential freedom, however, is that one's values are immutable; a consideration of one's values may cause one to reconsider and change them (though this rarely happens). A consequence of this fact is that one is not only responsible for one's actions, but also for the values one holds.

A person who assumes their own personal responsibility for their own personal free-will could say much the same thing.

This entails that a reference to "common values" doesn't "excuse" the individual's actions, because, even though these are the values of the society he is part of, they are also his own in the sense that he could choose them to be different at any time.

Nor should a reference to “common values” “excuse” the individual’s actions outside of existentialism…within say, the context of a sincere and forthright religious walk.

Thus, the focus on freedom in existentialism is related to the limits of the responsibility one bears as a result of one's freedom: The relationship between freedom and responsibility is one of interdependency, and a clarification of freedom also clarifies what one is responsible for.

I knew there was something about Existentialism that didn’t quite set well, I just never pursued it. What I am seeing, to be honest and sincere, is an attempt to be religious without being accountable. Clue me in where I am wrong…this could make an interesting discussion.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by StarshipEnterprise

A big pet peeve of mine is when people ask "What is the meaning of life?". To this I reply: what are you asking? Has anyone stopped to think what is actually being asked here?

Can anyone tell me specifically what this question means? At first glance it appears as if it is asking for a definition of the word "life", but I'm pretty sure that's not it.

It might be synonymous with "what is the purpose of life", which makes more sense, but only in a theistic context. "Purpose" implies that some sort of consciousness had some kind of goal in mind. So this question is basically asking "what is the creator's goal in creating life". Completely irrelevant outside of a theist’s perspective.

I think it is just a poorly worded question asked by someone who wants one easy answer to everything.

Can anyone enlighten me?

The meaning of life is objective meaning. The meanings of things and concepts comprise subjective meaning. Objective meaning itself is the emotional experience of wisdom and wisdom is the inner experience of the interactions of essential universal laws and their results. It is what the heart seeks in comparison to the subjective self justifications of our normal emotional expressions.

Some people have had the experience of the meaning of life itself when they have transcended their subjective conditioned meaning.

Where subjective meaning refers to us, objective meaning refers to the wisdom that always was. It is described beautifully in proverbs 8: 22-23. Wisdom is speaking of the divine pattern of the cosmos expressed as objective meaning:

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water...
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth... when he gave the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him...
Now therefore harken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

[earl]

I agree SE about the whole question-heck even the question of what is the purpose of Life? Far too grand of a metaphysical question. More fruitful is the question to what purpose(s) does an individual choose to live the life they're given. earl

[Only Special To God]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Hi Ian,

Moi! Angry!! lol, if you think I can get angry over such inconsequentials then you have yet to get me. Short of putting words in my mouth nothing you say will even irritate, never mind anger me. I merely sought to point out to you that the sentence I quoted back at you, which is well seperated from "IMO" by the "but" you inserted, is in effect telling me and everybody else what you think they should think. Do you not think that arrogant? Do you think me too stupid to formulate my own opinions on such matters?

As for the way you talk to Grey... you appear to me not only be trying to tell us all what we "should" think but here you want to control what we say too! I think you should spend less time praying for me, or anyone, and a little more reflecting on what mutual respect really is. What strikes me on occasions such as this is the weaknesses in an argument being artificially propped up with "believe this", its stinks to me of a desperation to convince yourself, not me.

tao

No, sir I am not an authoritarian, I do believe that is your role. Whatever you say, sir that is your opinion. I am not arrogant but if that is how you perceive me to be, I guess that is better than being considered a “tosser” by other’s here at the forum.

I will not apologize for speaking the truth, sir.

God Bless,
Ian

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

I agree SE about the whole question-heck even the question of what is the purpose of Life? Far too grand of a metaphysical question. More fruitful is the question to what purpose(s) does an individual choose to live the life they're given. earl

Earl, you just shot down the dharma. It seeks to connect our life with universal principles or the meaning of life. Buddhists and Hindus will growl at you but that is OK, secularists growl at me.

World Scripture - Moral Law

Unlike the laws described by modern science, the immutable divine Law is inherently moral, and is the basis for human ethics. The Hindu concept of Dharma, for example, embraces at once the cosmological, ethical, social, and legal principles that provide the basis for belief in an ordered universe and an ordered, prosperous society.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Only Special To God

No, sir I am not an authoritarian, I do believe that is your role. Whatever you say, sir that is your opinion. I am not arrogant but if that is how you perceive me to be, I guess that is better than being considered a “tosser” by other’s here at the forum.

I will not apologize for speaking the truth, sir.

God Bless,
Ian

lmao... now you speak for everybody!! Go inject some more steroids... inject your mind with mindless God.... and have a nice day.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Earl, you just shot down the dharma. It seeks to connect our life with universal principles or the meaning of life. Buddhists and Hindus will growl at you but that is OK, secularists growl at me.

World Scripture - Moral Law

Unlike the laws described by modern science, the immutable divine Law is inherently moral, and is the basis for human ethics. The Hindu concept of Dharma, for example, embraces at once the cosmological, ethical, social, and legal principles that provide the basis for belief in an ordered universe and an ordered, prosperous society.

Nick, never heard a Buddhist teacher spend time discussing the "purpose of life." earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Nick, never heard a Buddhist teacher spend time discussing the "purpose of life." earl

The quality of the teacher can only respond to the quality of the student. Western Buddhism has become so secularized that it is rare to find students willing to go deeper.

The meaning of life is one thing and is the interactions of universal laws as a whole. The purpose of life is another thing and the purpose of human life within life as a whole is still another and is concerned with human potential within the context of of "meaning." "Purpose" is an extension of "meaning."

[earl]

Still, Nick, never heard any Buddhist teacher say anything about "meaning of life" either, not to say there's anything wrong with it. Perhaps when you're implying that Buddhist dharma teaching specifically addresses the question of "what is the meaning/purpose of life," you could provide some Buddhist references to support that contention. earl