# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  The Purpose of Life

## subterranean

A co-worker lend me this book called "The purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren. The book is based on Christian teachings, with core point that in order to find your life's purpose, you need to start with God. 

IMO, most self help or philosopy books will tell you to search within yourself to find the answer for the Q "Why Am I Here?". As Existentialism stated, we exist first then we find our reason to be here, not the other way around as the above book said. Or maybe the need to reason is very much related when you belief in superior beings, which has power to control your existance (past, present, and future). As Betrand Russel said (which quoted form the book), "Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless".


What is the purpose of your life? How do you know/find it?

----------


## atiguhya padma

Maybe it is better to have a mutable purpose, one that is forever changing or changable. For me personally, the question of purpose should be preceded by the question: does there have to be a purpose to life? if there is no purpose, would this make a big difference to how you see yourself or how you live? Can a purposeless life be worth living?

----------


## Helga

I agree with AP, I think you should find your own purpose and look within, but it just seems a lot easier to think that God is what gives you purpose and he has laid a path for you. I have no faith and I think I should be able to find the reason why I am here and if life matters at all if you have no purpose without looking for faith to tell me these things. They say that 'what goes around comes around' and I think that makes a lot of sense and Karma is even worth looking into I think. I spent most of my teenage years wondering what I am doing hereso I'm gonna take a brake now and try to make sense in my head before I try to make sense in the world. If that makes any sense!

----------


## Helga

I was thinking about this thread at work today and I realized something. 

I work at an old folk home. As I was watching them I didn't see a purpose in anything we do if it will end like this. Alzheimer, Parkinson I these people aren't happy. A woman who has Alzheimer asks the same questions every 3 minuets. She asked the woman sitting next to her in a weelchair, what her name was. That woman has Parkinson and can't talk or control any of her movements. It's tragic to end your life this way. I don't see the reason why you should live when this is the end.

If anyone can brighten up my thoughts, that would be nice  :Wink:

----------


## Loki

The meaning of life..."why?" Why is it that we're here? What are we doing here? Why are we alive? Why does the universe exist? Why are we as we are? Why is there so much poverty in the world? Why are some better off than others? Why do we die? Why do we live?

The list goes on and on. "Why" is perhaps the most fundamental question of philosophy. It is different from science's "how." How did life evolve. How did we come into being. How did the universe come into existence. Science explains how things work; philosophy tries to answer the "why" question.

"What is the meaning of life" is beyond rational thinking. Can you ask such a complex, philosophical question and answer it from pure logic? With logic we may be able to decipher many, many wonders, but unfortunately, never "why" we're here.

Is there a purpose to life? Is there a point at all? Or are we perhaps here just on the whim of some giant grandfather? Or even due to a fluke universe that just happens to contain conditions perfect for life to develop?

To ask the meaning of life one has to define life itself. What _is_ life, after all? I know; something that moves, respires, grows, reproduces, reacts to environmental stimuli, etc. But is that all? A virus, for example, does not fit into the definition of life. It does not grow and does not require food. It reacts with its environment but, it reproduces, but...is it alive? Not in the traditional sense, perhaps; but in some different way...in its own way...it is alive.

Now, if _viruses_ are alive, then what of the other wonders of the microcosmos? What of atoms, antiparticles, quarks, superstrings, molecules, virtual particles? Are these also not, in some sense, alive?

We now come to the point. If the microcosmos is alive, then the world we know...inanimate objects - umbrellas, chairs, rocks - they would be alive too. Well, if we did not move, did not reproduce, did not respire, in all external appearances, and yet if inside us our cells were still alive, reproducing, moving...would we not also be alive?

But why, why, why? Why life? What is life good for? And why are we alive? Why do we suffer, why do we rejoice, why do we weep? Why are we even here at all? Science tells us we are here from natural selection, from evolution - but what started life off in the first place? And furthermore, why did the universe come into existence? Why does the material world exist at all? Because if nothing existed...what would happen if nothing existed? How could nothing at all possibly exist?

Why, why, why. Is there a purpose, a meaning? Perhaps. Or are we merely a cosmological blunder, a fluke. New physics shows that there are multiple histories of our universe; some with life, some without...the ones without obviously only without because they cannot support it...or some different form of life, totally unkown to us?

After all of this questioning, I must conclude that I think we will not ever be able to answer that question, or at least not altogether satisfactorily. We may be able to find some reason that fits, but will it ever be complete? We are tiny specks of dust with brains...how can we understand the meaning of it all. It's a wonder that we can understand anything.

But whether it is impossible to answer the question of life or not...we should never stop asking. It would be a drab world if we did not wonder, if we did not aspire to know that which is perhaps beyond the limits of thought.

Loki

----------


## fayefaye

{I can't be bothered reading this whole thread so sorry if I restate things which someone has already written or fail completely to contribute to a constructive discussion. Gimme a break, I'm tired.}

I think on the subject of existentialism, someone (frankl?) said that we should not ask the world what the meaning of life is: it is a question to ask ourselves (something along those lines) I think that's pretty well right.. if you're looking for a meaning to your life, you have to give yourself one. And of course it's a very human trait to presuppose we even have a meaning. We could very well have none at all; something which perhaps people don't want to have to confront for fear of dealing with the fact that; wait a second --- I was a MISTAKE.. my life is MEANINGLESS....... (at least we can say we have a purpose as organisms to reproduce...)

The meaning of life, yes. I've thought about this question long and hard. And I have an answer. forty-two. exactly forty-two.

----------


## subterranean

Well Helga, I admired your patience in doing the job  :Smile: . With reason of my impatiency (not to mention I'm an angry pants), I wouldn't dare to do your kind of job.

Why you choose the job Helga? I mean is it only a part time job or is it something that you really want to do?
The thing is no one can really predict his/her future. When you're young you could do anything, eat and drink anything..You're so healty and stong...But you don't know whether these strenght and healt last till you're old. If you want to keep them, best thing you can do is exercise, eat healty food, don't smoke, etc..But even when you're so healty, you could get involve in car crash which make you paralzy (sp) for the rest of your life.


Personally, I think of everyone has a purpose in life, whether they realize it or not. Even people who don't study philosophy, at least once in his/her life ask that Q "Why am I here, why am I living"? Some choose to dig (like the philosophers and us now  :Smile:  )...and some choose to ignore it and take it for granted, seize the day 






> I was thinking about this thread at work today and I realized something. 
> 
> I work at an old folk home. As I was watching them I didn't see a purpose in anything we do if it will end like this. Alzheimer, Parkinson I these people aren't happy. A woman who has Alzheimer asks the same questions every 3 minuets. She asked the woman sitting next to her in a weelchair, what her name was. That woman has Parkinson and can't talk or control any of her movements. It's tragic to end your life this way. I don't see the reason why you should live when this is the end.
> 
> If anyone can brighten up my thoughts, that would be nice

----------


## Helga

I do enjoy this job a lot, but it is not something I plan to do forever. This has been a part tie job except in the summer, I will work full time during my summer 'vacation'. Somebody told me that it's not the result it's the journey, but I don't want to end my life like this...

----------


## Monica

A.Miller "Prophecy" (no philosophical book, but still a great short story)

"'Then what's the point in living?'
'Because we must live. That is all.'
'I wouldn't call that much of a point.'
'Maybe there isn't much of a point.'"

----------


## Jeremy H

Wow,

There is a lot here. If you will permit me, I would like to respond to several of you. Its not that I am trying to answer all the questions, but I would like to interact with as much of this topic as I can.

As for the member who said:




> "To me the philosophical pursuit of the meaning of life is as radiculous as the philosophers themselves."



That is ridiculous. Its a common attitude, but it only displays a COMPLETE lack of knowledge as to the academic history of the world. Do you realize that every hard science we have was born out of philosophy. Its too many to list, but I will through some out there:

Mathematics: Pythagorus (Remember the therum?), Euclid (Euclidian geometry), Newton (Calculus), Descartes (Cartesian Geometry) etc

Logic (which you have to thank for the computer your using): Aristotle, Leibniz, Boole 

Science in general: Bacon (scientific theory!!!), Khoon, Popper.

Biology: Bacon and Dawin.

Chemistry: Hayyan

We have government from Marx, Engel, Economics from Adam Smith 

Astronomy!!!!: man NASA would not be here if it where not for Copernicus, Galileo, Newtone, Kepler

All these people are in this list for only one reason. They asked why and found some answers that worked well with our surroundings. Do you realize how grossly short this list comes of naming everyone? And all of them can rightly be considered philosophers.

You see here is the problem. A thought will start in philosophy, and as it is formed and nurtured, it becomes accepted as fact or science. Then it is no longer philosophy. Philosophy is like the neglected mother of many brilliant children. As far as we know the philosophy of life has just as much potential as the philosophy math--we just havent gotten there yet. 

So, sorry I have to take extreme objection to what you are saying. The fact that you are posting on this board is conclusive proof that you owe your way of life to philosophy.

*To Helga:* 




> It's tragic to end your life this way. I don't see the reason why you should live when this is the end.


You asked basically, "if this is the end, then what is the point?" Well I think that for a person like Warren, a beliefe in God is inextricably tied with the beliefe in the eternal soul. That would meen that the reality of man is not the bodies you see wasting away at you job. But instead, the thing about those people you work with that is realy real, is a soul. An entity that their infirmities cannot touch.

For Warren, what you are seeing is most definently not the end.

*atiguhya padma:*




> does there have to be a purpose to life?


In my opinion, a person will not be content without a purpose. As to "life," I think that we can agree that the question is refering to human life. I know a lot of people who live without purpose, so obviously there does not have to be one. But... I think that man needs purpose, for what ever reason. I do not think he can be satisfied with lving if he does not have one.

And to go at the original question:



> What is the purpose of your life? How do you know/find it?


Well... The second question is easy. You can't. We are rational creatures, but all that means is that we can know things conditionally: *If* this is true, then we can know this is true...

We can never be assured of the truths to our premises. Because of that, all things must be taken on faith. 

Don't get me wrong I am not saying that truth does not exist. I am just saying that I do not believe mankind has the ability to obtain it through reason. Because I take it on faith that what my mind is telling me about the things I hear, see, taste, touch and smell, are true--all things I can know are conditionally based on faith.

So it is faith that delvers us the truth, not reason. If Russell knows the truth, then it is his faith that holds him to the belief, not reason. And if he claimed to hold it through reason, he would be lying.

Any way... I would say that this my 2 cents... but it looks more like a buck fifty.

Thanks for reading if you did,

Jeremy

----------


## blp

> Can a purposeless life be worth living?


A contemplative one can and in contemplation the purposeless/purposeful binary seems to collapse in on itself. Just been reading a little about Sufism, the governing idea of which seems to be that the face of God is everywhere and everything, including your own thoughts, feelings and perceptions and the purpose of life is to surrender to this joyfully. I was interested because there was a documentary about Iranian filmmakers on TV here last night and one of them mentioned Sufism. Almost all of them talked about the need to negate the role of the director or the importance of listening and looking in their work and the films themselves are very contemplative. An American woman interviewed at a screening said something like 'I was aware of myself thinking about the film during the film and that's a real luxury.' Much of the world's great cinema has done this. It's the cinema's great hidden capability, the space it can create for contemplation, hidden by the demands of the entertainment market. When you do become quiet enough inside to see and hear, things become beautiful. This state of peace gives way or gives rise to action and one's purpose, always provisional, becomes whatever germinated and took root during the state of rest. Most of the great mystical traditions seem to teach a version of this and the idea that the face of God is in everything is an attempt to explain it.

----------


## Jeremy H

Hmmm,

well I have always seen a proscribed purpose in Sufism. As you yourself noted in your post:




> the purpose of life is to surrender to this joyfully


You see even in pure contemplation there is a purpose for man to conform himself to. The thing is, is man has these dual characteristics that war inside him. he both needs a purpose, and resist being conformed completely to any purpose.

Because of that, if a person says 'live your life to surrender to the joy of seeing the face of God in all things..." well that is great, but it will be a daily struggle. It will give him a purpose though.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Saying that the face of God is in everything seems rather distasteful to me. I used to think that holism was a really great idea. Then someone asked me if I really liked the idea of being one with Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot.

----------


## blp

> if a person says 'live your life to surrender to the joy of seeing the face of God in all things..." well that is great, but it will be a daily struggle. It will give him a purpose though.


I'm not advocating Sufism or any other mystical tradition. I don't believe that the face of God is in all things, I said I thought that was an attempt to explain the effect of contemplation. I agree that attempting to surrender to that would become a daily struggle. Religion seems constantly to become arduous after initially promising liberation. I also don't think that the purpose of life is to be always contemplative. You can't end action, but contemplation is rest and you need that too. You could say then that contemplation has a purpose, even if it's to become temporarily purposeless. Fine. We're talking here about the purpose of life and my point was that this question diminishes in importance or collapses in on itself in the moment of contemplation. 


Alike for those who for TO-DAY prepare
And those that after some TO-MORROW stare
A Muezzin frome the Tower of Darkness cries,
Fools! Your Reward is neither Here nor There. 

- Rubayat of Omar Kayam

----------


## blp

> I used to think that holism was a really great idea. Then someone asked me if I really liked the idea of being one with Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot.


Again, without wishing to advocate a position one way or the other, just because you don't like it doesn't philosophically invalidate it.

----------


## Scheherazade

Even though I won't be able to cite many important philosophers, unlike some of my more learned friends, here is my two cents as well (OK, maybe only one  :Biggrin:  )


> Its a common attitude, but it only displays a COMPLETE lack of knowledge as to the academic history of the world. Do you realize that every hard science we have was born out of philosophy


Very good point. Unfortunately, many people (including myself) are happy at things at their face value at times. 

I am not sure if anyone could lead a life without a purpose. Whether it is a desirable one or not, we all have a purpose. We get up in the mornings for a reason. We may not like it;we might resent/regret/hate it but we do. In the great scheme of things, our purpose and existence might seem insignificant and even trivial but the sand grain does not stop existing because of its size and if it finds its way into your shoes, it might feel like it is much bigger than its actual size.



> It's tragic to end your life this way. I don't see the reason why you should live when this is the end.


I agree with Jeremy here that there is more to our existence than our physical capabilities. I am not sure how close you are with the elderly you work with but I am sure if you ask them whether life is worth living, they would say 'yes'. One would expect their answer to be 'no', knowing where and how they will end up. That would bring up the question of who we are... Are we our physical existence or our knowledge and memories? I would like to go for the latter. A good book is still a good book even though the cover is damaged and torn into pieces. I would much rather have the good book with old cover than a trashy/worthless one with a pretty, new cover  :Wink:

----------


## atiguhya padma

Jeremy H said:

<For Russel, what you are seeing is most definently not the end.>

Russell was an atheist. Death for him was certainly the end.

The question of life's purpose, has always been a favourite question for the religious. This is because there is no real answer to the q

----------


## Jeremy H

Huh,

I am not sure that the face of God being evident in all things is the same thing as holism... maybe it is. For instance Christianity teaches things along the lines that all things point to God (based on certain bible verses,) but could hardly be considered a holist doctrine.

I guess the difference is a holist would say god is everything, which is not the same as saying he is in everything, or that he is evidenced in all things.

----------


## Jeremy H

Ouch how embracing. 

I was not trying to talk about Bertrand Russell... so sorry. I was talking about Rick Warren, the author of the book which spawned the discussion. I am soooo sorry, and you are absolutely right.

I live in the states, and so i will claim senility based on sleep depravation, since it was the middle of the night/morning when I posted that. 

sorry again, I will fix it.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Jeremy H said:

<For Russel, what you are seeing is most definently not the end.>

Russell was an atheist. Death for him was certainly the end.

The question of life's purpose, has always been a favourite question for the religious. This is because there is no real answer to the question, and therefore the questioner can play upon the desires of his or her audience for meaning. 

We are creatures that require meaning, purpose, justification. We thrive on the idea of life beyond life, because it gives a purpose to our deeds and our beliefs. But we have absolutely no reason to believe in a universal purpose to life. There are plenty of should's and ought's about it, and we can help our fellow creatures, both human and non-human, and this may make us feel a whole lot better about life, but purpose? I'm afraid there is no PURPOSE in big important letters. It is good to help others. It is good to live healthily, both physically and mentally. It may even be good to leave something that represents us behind when we expire. Life is for living. And maybe we should just live life as best we can. What is best will always be an individual, personal decision.

----------


## blp

You say




> In my opinion, a person will not be content without a purpose.


But also




> The thing is, is man has these dual characteristics that war inside him. he both needs a purpose, and resist being conformed completely to any purpose.


This latter is more to the point I think. Discussions of the meaning of life routinely skip over the fact that meaning can be oppressive. Too much is as bad as too little. Similarly, one single driving purpose would be monotonous and unfulfilling - unless of course, it was ultimately fulfilled, which would leave you once again without a purpose. Again - purposes are ephemeral and provisional. They alternate with and result from lack of purpose.

----------


## Jeremy H

> What is best will always be an individual, personal decision.


I both agree and disagree with this statement.

If you mean that it is something we have to decide for ourselves, then yes I agree.

BUT if you are implying that the reality of what is best is changed by the "personal decision we make," then I most definitely disagree. There is a truth value to all things, and it cannot be effected by merely deciding it is a certain way. If a thing is right, then it is right regardless of how we feel about it.

Like I said, we believe all things based on faith, but we are either right or wrong in our beliefs (or some degree of both.)

----------


## atiguhya padma

Julian Barbour, a physicist from Cambridge, has developed this theory that past, present and future are forever existent. He says that time is like a block, say a cube, and that time-present is that frame that moves through the cube, and that time-past is all that is behind the frame and time-future is all that is before the frame. But he stresses that the cube itself exists through all time, so that at any time-present, both time-past and time-future are 'alive' or functional, but not operative. That is to say, we have no way, currently, of accessing the past or the future. 

I remember one physicist, I think it might have been John Barrow, talking on the BBC about the loss of his mother who he dearly loved. He consoled himself with the thought that she had just moved from time-present to time-past and still 'existed' in a kind of parallel universe. Or something like that.

----------


## Jeremy H

> That is to say, we have no way, currently, of accessing the past or the future.


I agree with that to a large extent. I mean think of how fallible memory is?

----------


## blp

> Julian Barbour, a physicist from Cambridge, has developed this theory that past, present and future are forever existent.


This sounds very similar to Kant's concept of the ideality of time and space. Unfortunately, I only know it from secondary sources - Schopenhauer and Ernst Schroedinger, so may get it wrong, but as I understand it, we have no way of knowing that our perception of time and space is anything more than a product of our particular type of mind. Not much is said subsequent to that about space by either referrer, but if time does not exist, the idea of death becomes fairly meaningless. Schopenhauer uses this as a jumping off point for a disquisition on his belief in reincarnation. Schroedinger begins by saying the theory is impossible to prove or disprove and would be less interesting if it was provable one way or another, but then enjoys its strong echo and apparent validation in post Newtonian physics.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<There is a truth value to all things,>

I would say there are statistical probabilities to all things. Whether this equates to your truth value I don't know. I would also say that nothing is 100% certain, or at least, nothing can be shown to be 100% certain. 

Truth I have always considered a very tricky concept. I mean, truth, to be really true, should be 100% certain, shouldn't it? beyond any possible doubt. I just don't think anything is like that. 

To paraphrase Russell, there is no logical argument against the idea that the world was made yesterday with all the ingredients needed to give it the idea that it had a very ancient history. You could update that 'yesterday' to this second that will pass now. 

It would seem that nothing is certain beyond doubt.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<This sounds very similar to Kant's concept of the ideality of time and space.>

I think Kant is a very interesting philosopher. From what I recall of him, he said that time and space were both intuitions of the mind. Kant believed that we need to possess the intuitions of time and space before we can perceive objects, or understand our perceptions of objects. For example, we cannot conceive of an object without reference to space or time; therefore, we must have an intuition of space or time in order to perceive objects. That's quite a revolutionary and profound idea in my opinion.

----------


## blp

> From what I recall of him, he said that time and space were both intuitions of the mind. Kant believed that we need to possess the intuitions of time and space before we can perceive objects, or understand our perceptions of objects. For example, we cannot conceive of an object without reference to space or time; therefore, we must have an intuition of space or time in order to perceive objects. That's quite a revolutionary and profound idea in my opinion.


Yes, well I was slightly upset by it at first, which is often a good sign.

----------


## chispa

I think the purpose of life is to discover your abilities and develop them to the full extent.....that will make you happy..  :Wink:

----------


## mono

Call me simple, but the general purpose of life to me seems happiness; what alternates proves the differences between others in their search for happiness - Aristotle called it the perfection of virtue, Buddha called it love, Plato called it the divine Good, Lao Tzu called it harmony . . .

On a side note, one of my personal favorite quotes from Samuel Taylor Coleridge: "Happiness is the end of virtue, and truth is knowledge of the means."

----------


## mohan kumar

I am reading a book named dark nights of the soul by Thomas Moore. It is very disturbing. He advocates that instead of trying to cleanse your dark side try to appreciate your dark side. It may help you to overcome your tough period. Is it not negative oriented?

Mohan Kumar

----------


## atiguhya padma

On the contrary, sounds liberating.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Mono,

Do you advocate hedonism then? Or is that more pleasure-oriented than happiness-oriented?

The problem with happiness being the goal is that it is an internal, egocentric thing, unless you are talking about creating happiness for others.

----------


## Ulalle

Mono, (and others)

how is happiness defined? do you think there is a measure (universal?) by which happiness is defined? (but more importantly should we adhere to such a measure ? if we can find it of course) 

Ulalle

----------


## atiguhya padma

Supposing we discovered a synthetic drug that made us totally soporific but let us live the rest of our lives in a state of happiness. Would it be purposeful to take this drug? Would we not have far more purpose if we were to lead a life free of this drug, filled with mixed quantities of happiness and unhappiness?

----------


## Scheherazade

S-o-m-a !!!

----------


## blp

> Supposing we discovered a synthetic drug that made us totally soporific but let us live the rest of our lives in a state of happiness. Would it be purposeful to take this drug? Would we not have far more purpose if we were to lead a life free of this drug, filled with mixed quantities of happiness and unhappiness?


Perhaps it's relevant to mention that Wittgenstein didn't even think the purpose of therapy was to be happy, but to make people better at thinking. I half go along with this - I think the greatest happiness comes from being able to think well. Any happiness to be gained from a drug is just a pale imitation.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<S-o-m-a !!!>

Nice one Scheher.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<I think the greatest happiness comes from being able to think well.>

I would say that this is a contentious issue. Firstly, many great minds, who thought extremely well, were seriously unhappy. Wittgenstein was a case in point. Secondly, it would appear that often people who do not have the capacity to think well, can seem to be happy. Its far too difficult to assess happiness on a scale of how well somebody can think.

There is often a biological cause to unhappiness. One might look again at the Wittgenstein family to see that it had an extremely high number of suicides and attempted suicides within the family network. Maybe some of us are born with the biological components to be extremely happy but dull thinkers; and others to be great thinkers but rather unhappy. That is not to say that only dull thinkers can be happy of course. I can easily imagine a great mind having a great deal of happiness, it just doesn't always follow.

----------


## chispa

> Mono, (and others)
> 
> how is happiness defined? do you think there is a measure (universal?) by which happiness is defined? (but more importantly should we adhere to such a measure ? if we can find it of course) 
> 
> Ulalle


happiness cannot the same for you than for me.....everybody s happiness is different and may be begins when you know yourself enough to accept yourself with your good and bad....  :Cool:

----------


## atiguhya padma

> Call me simple, but the general purpose of life to me seems happiness; what alternates proves the differences between others in their search for happiness - Aristotle called it the perfection of virtue, Buddha called it love, Plato called it the divine Good, Lao Tzu called it harmony


It seems to me that many people equate purpose with personal happiness. But why? This seems such a selfish focus. Why shouldn't purpose in life be more to do with usefulness or utility? Look around you. All those people (it seems to me), who are most driven by purpose in life, are exactly the kind of people that feel useful, that feel that they are providing some meaning to something or someone beyond themselves. Maybe this is the measure of purpose: to how many people am I useful? to how many people do I provide happiness? to how many people do I provide some form of meaning? Doesn't everyone want to feel wanted?

----------


## mono

> Do you advocate hedonism then? Or is that more pleasure-oriented than happiness-oriented?
> 
> The problem with happiness being the goal is that it is an internal, egocentric thing, unless you are talking about creating happiness for others.


I would like to think that the pursuit and perception of happiness comes entirely subjective to every individual. Personally, I do not find that uplifting, transcendent sense of happiness through Hedonism, and could never advocate for someone like Epicurus, but entirely understand that some people call the indulging of the senses the closest to happiness possible; in a concept of John Stuart Mill, I suppose I attempt indulging other faculties, rather than endorsing into "Hedonic Calculus" (Jeremy Bentham).
I honestly have not found an ideal happiness, as, to its full definition, I think happiness would last, void of the occasional bouts of depression and moodswings. As you seem to ask me, personally, AP, and my opinions can seem quite extreme, happiness proves definitely a individually-sought state; some people search through religion, philosophy, knowledge, wisdom, Hedonism (as you mentioned), free will, and the list proceeds for the other nearly 7 billion people.
Eh, I suppose that summarizes my opinion in a nutshell.  :Tongue: 



> how is happiness defined? do you think there is a measure (universal?) by which happiness is defined? (but more importantly should we adhere to such a measure ? if we can find it of course)


You read my mind, Ulalle. As I mentioned in my reply to AP's question, the search for happiness seems, to me, entirely subjective and individual; whether there exists an absolute happiness, I cannot say, adhering too strongly to skepticism, but if it does exist, then, according to me, merely, I find it easy to say that there subsists multiple means to one end.
The definition of happiness? I have no idea; maybe that would fall within the winding bounds of subjectivity too. Aristotle, in his _Nicomachean Ethics_ would call happiness "the perfection of virtue," but "never attainable during life." Life, he claims, proves in a constant state of flux, and happiness, in its purity, must solidify as a strong, persisting state, impervious to the mere small swings to sadness or anger.
Whether I agree with Aristotle or not, I have questioned since reading much of his material. I strongly agree with him that happiness does involve virtue and constancy, yet its attainability extends universally devoid of a proper definition; it proceeds from something so much more within one's self (which seems the reason why I do not consider myself an Hedonist - a philosophy that seeks from outward extending indulgences - no offense), balancing a unity with one and his/her surroundings - contentment, in a way.

----------


## blp

> <I think the greatest happiness comes from being able to think well.>
> 
> I would say that this is a contentious issue.


Of course. Because it depends on what one means by 'think well'. But you are wrong to assume as you do that it it automatically synonymous with being/having a great mind. I'll come back to this point. 




> There is often a biological cause to unhappiness. One might look again at the Wittgenstein family to see that it had an extremely high number of suicides and attempted suicides within the family network. Maybe some of us are born with the biological components to be extremely happy but dull thinkers; and others to be great thinkers but rather unhappy. That is not to say that only dull thinkers can be happy of course. I can easily imagine a great mind having a great deal of happiness, it just doesn't always follow.


I don't think you can use a high number of instances of unhappiness in one family as anything other than the flimsiest circumstantial evidence for a biological cause for unhappiness. When you talk to an unhappy person about what is making them unhappy, they usually reveal patterns of thought, belief and behaviour in which they are imprisoned. They might be afraid of being hurt in a love situation, fixated on unpleasant things in their environment, any number of things. These things are often highly irrational and absurd - they can seem like the beliefs and perceptions of children and perhaps they are simply residues of childhood. If the child had parents who were similarly 'stuck', there would have been no one to help them through this and if those parents were irrational, unloving, stressful in various ways because of their unhappiness, this would have affected the child's view of the world too. I'm not insisting that this is the way it is for ALL unhappy people, but I find this a considerably more plausible explanation for unhappiness existing in multiple members of the same families - and particularly so because I have known people who took Prozac and other drugs that were supposed to counteract the biochemical cause of their unhappiness and while they said it made them feel better, it did not appear to improve their behavior. In some instances, at least, it seems likely that unhappiness is something learned and it can also be unlearned and this process is also a process of learning to think better - more three dimensionally, less dogmatically, with more complexity, more humility about what one does not know and more of a sense of how people lie, especially to themselves. I think it is possible to be very intelligent indeed and still fall down on some or all of these. 
To give you your due, however, I've heard there's an opposite biological condition to autism where the 'sufferers' are of subnormal intelligence, but 
have exceptionally high capacities for empathy and usually appear extremely happy and alert. I'm afraid I can't remember the name of it.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<When you talk to an unhappy person about what is making them unhappy, they usually reveal patterns of thought, belief and behaviour in which they are imprisoned.>

I would say that patterns of thought, belief and behaviour always have a biological basis. I mean put it this way, I've never seen a pattern of thought or a belief or a behaviour pattern that wasn't attached to a biological function.

----------


## blp

> I would say that patterns of thought, belief and behaviour always have a biological basis. I mean put it this way, I've never seen a pattern of thought or a belief or a behaviour pattern that wasn't attached to a biological function.


With all due respect and none of the animosity these words imply, this sounds like pedantic, disingenuous hair-splitting. It's quite obvious that biology plays some part in all of this, so much so as to be a meaningless observation, but it also seemed fairly obvious in the post of yours I was referring to that you were using biological to suggest a physical predisposition to unhappiness that could be inherited by one person from another.

----------


## fayefaye

*trying not to smile* 'with none of the animosity these words imply and all due respect, it sounds like you have a rod lodged two foot up your ***....'

----------


## atiguhya padma

From the NIMH website:

<There is growing evidence that familial and genetic factors contribute to the risk for suicidal behavior. Major psychiatric illnesses, including bipolar disorder, major depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism and substance abuse, and certain personality disorders, which run in families, increase the risk for suicidal behavior. This does not mean that suicidal behavior is inevitable for individuals with this family history; it simply means that such persons may be more vulnerable and should take steps to reduce their risk, such as getting evaluation and treatment at the first sign of mental illness.>

----------


## atiguhya padma

Anyway, to get back on the track of this thread, it would appear from some discussions here that happiness cannot be the sole criterion for a purpose in life. Happiness, if it is somehow connected to the purpose of life, has to be qualified with something else.

It strikes me that in centuries past, the idea of 'personal' anything was largely irrelevant. I think the order of things was such, that most people would have believed in a kind of predestined station in life. Maybe in the process of developing human freedom, those pioneers against oppression created a world for their fellow human beings, which enabled the development of individualism to emerge. It would seem ironic, that through the sacrifices of radical thinkers who laboured for the freedom of others, we know wallow in the idea that purpose is all about individual liberty, individual happiness or individual meaning.

----------


## blp

'growing evidence'...yup. Never denied it. All I was trying to point out is that the instance of unhappiness among more than one member of the same family does not, in itself, constitute that evidence.

----------


## blp

> *trying not to smile* 'with none of the animosity these words imply and all due respect, it sounds like you have a rod lodged two foot up your ***....'


Yes, and it's got a picture of your face on it. Keep a check on those personal attacks.  :Wink:

----------


## Ulalle

Mono,

Thanks for an interesting presentation. First let me state that I agree with you that contentment is a much more reasonable fashion to describe that which humans normally refer to as happiness if only because to my understanding Happiness is a concept whilst contentment is a description.
That may seem a semantic description to some but to me it is a fundamental distinction between an abstraction (happiness) and a describable state of mind (contentment).
The way I see it contentment allows me the freedom to make happiness (with all its ingredients included) a kind of a superstate or a super-concept that is a-priori unattainable and is used as a compass to guide me in my knowledge of my immediacy into a desired future.
Hence when the level of contentment has grown the knowledge of correctness of my inner direction is clearer. This clarity of direction towards happiness using the yardstick of contentment in turn allows me a certain foundation for humility when approaching the vicissitudes of life. So in a sense I do agree with Aristotle especially concerning his descriptions of the persistence of the state in question.
Having said the above I wish to add that in accordance to the old traditions I cannot imagine a contentment state which does not in some deep sense involve self reflection but more importantly still is the need to reflect upon the wisdom of being a human. A human of integrity (and a human striving for contentment in my book needs inherent integrity) needs this kind of inner reflection to move upward in his own self-fulfillment. A fulfillment, which by definition involves the concept of meeting life on its own terms.

----------


## subterranean

> I am reading a book named dark nights of the soul by Thomas Moore. It is very disturbing. He advocates that instead of trying to cleanse your dark side try to appreciate your dark side. It may help you to overcome your tough period. Is it not negative oriented?
> 
> Mohan Kumar



If you believe in God, then this is where God play his role. You were born with them on purpose. Now I'm totally agree with Russel.. 





> It would seem ironic, that through the sacrifices of radical thinkers who laboured for the freedom of others, we know wallow in the idea that purpose is all about individual liberty, individual happiness or individual meaning.


Individual happines would led to the happines of the greater group, and so on...

----------


## simon

It seems to me that we are partly here to be witness to the greateness of the universe, to stand in awe of it. Somehow that must require that there is some meaning in life since something must witness and remember this greateness.

----------


## mono

> Thanks for an interesting presentation. First let me state that I agree with you that contentment is a much more reasonable fashion to describe that which humans normally refer to as happiness if only because to my understanding Happiness is a concept whilst contentment is a description.
> That may seem a semantic description to some but to me it is a fundamental distinction between an abstraction (happiness) and a describable state of mind (contentment).
> The way I see it contentment allows me the freedom to make happiness (with all its ingredients included) a kind of a superstate or a super-concept that is a-priori unattainable and is used as a compass to guide me in my knowledge of my immediacy into a desired future.
> Hence when the level of contentment has grown the knowledge of correctness of my inner direction is clearer. This clarity of direction towards happiness using the yardstick of contentment in turn allows me a certain foundation for humility when approaching the vicissitudes of life. So in a sense I do agree with Aristotle especially concerning his descriptions of the persistence of the state in question.
> Having said the above I wish to add that in accordance to the old traditions I cannot imagine a contentment state which does not in some deep sense involve self reflection but more importantly still is the need to reflect upon the wisdom of being a human. A human of integrity (and a human striving for contentment in my book needs inherent integrity) needs this kind of inner reflection to move upward in his own self-fulfillment. A fulfillment, which by definition involves the concept of meeting life on its own terms.


Very well said, Ulalle. I could not agree more.  :Smile: 
The thought that contentment providing somewhat of a path for happiness I have never thought of, but I certainly perceive what you mean; and realizing the potential wisdom of a human being I find quite essential also in a degree of happiness (despite the phrase: "wisdom comes from suffering").
Well said!

----------


## subterranean

> It seems to me that we are partly here to be witness to the greateness of the universe, to stand in awe of it. Somehow that must require that there is some meaning in life since something must witness and remember this greateness.




Just witness? Without taking part at all?

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Somehow that must require that there is some meaning in life since something must witness and remember this greateness.>

Does a CCTV camera have much meaning?

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Individual happines would led to the happines of the greater group, and so on...>

That all depends on the route to individual happiness. Capitalism offers routes to individual happiness, but with a finite amount of resources, with not enough to go round, how can this lead to the happiness of everyone? Competition can lead to individual happiness for the one or the few, but can it lead to happiness of the many? of all?

----------


## subterranean

> <Individual happines would led to the happines of the greater group, and so on...>
> 
> That all depends on the route to individual happiness. Capitalism offers routes to individual happiness, but with a finite amount of resources, with not enough to go round, how can this lead to the happiness of everyone? Competition can lead to individual happiness for the one or the few, but can it lead to happiness of the many? of all?



Weren't the philosophers always talk in the "idealistic" level..? I mean when Adam Smith wrote the wealth of nations, wasn't he being idealistic there by saying those theories which he thought would brought prosperity to everyone?

----------


## subterranean

But it's quite funny that since the old old days, people trying to figure the anwser to this old Q..and when they (thought) they did, they considered it as the answer to whole human race..whilst, the issue they thought about is something which is very individualistic (the purpose of life -of a person).

----------


## atiguhya padma

Maybe the question of the purpose of life is twofold then, what is the purpose of an individual human life? and what is the purpose of the human race? There might even be a third: what is the point of any life, be it human, animal, vegetable etc.

However, I would imagine that any answer to the second question would probably cover the third.

----------


## subterranean

I don't know, I'm not a vegetable or animals, but as a human I sometimes consider that their existance in this earth is to compliment human's life. Either to fulfill physical needs or further than that, like some people have dogs as their best-friends.

IMO, when the philolosophers thought about this Q, they made a generalization about what's the purpose of life should be, means that they created a huge idea which can be breakdown to an individual level and thus (hopefully) will explain each person's regardless their situation/condition.
For example, existentialism just stated that life is made of choices. Without making choices and decision, you simply don't exist. This idea is actually can be applied to all humans.

----------


## richelle

If we assume that we exist just for the reason that we are breathing, it's so , i don't know the right word. I can't even explain it. I've read self-help books, i've studied philosophy, but all this study didn't give me the direction i need. i just continue living, hoping that someday i'll know why i'm here. i believe in God, but i'm ashamed to approach him because of my sins. Anyway, if i see a baby smile and hear my friends laugh, then it feels good to be alive. i guess in the end, it's love that will keep us going.

----------


## IrishCanadian

If there are any Christian's in the group here I strongly recomend The Confessions Of Saint Augustine. He is a doctor of the church, and this stuff i not light reading. He makes real literature, and that is not just because he lived in the early Middle Ages. -Be careful when reading Whitman with this question posed aswell: he took his wisdom from pure thought in a lone chair, he is a wonderful poet but not a philosopher, with nothing to back up his unfounded (yet interesting and well put) ideas. If you disagree with me I hope i can read any reply but i'm not online very often. At any rate, this is only what I think.

----------


## amuse

> If we assume that we exist just for the reason that we are breathing, it's so , i don't know the right word. I can't even explain it. I've read self-help books, i've studied philosophy, but all this study didn't give me the direction i need. i just continue living, hoping that someday i'll know why i'm here. i believe in God, but i'm ashamed to approach him because of my sins. Anyway, if i see a baby smile and hear my friends laugh, then it feels good to be alive. i guess in the end, it's love that will keep us going.


as someone who believes that god made us and, yes, loves us, i don't see why you need to be ashamed to approach [it]. i mean, you're probably an open book to god, anyway. sins or no sins.

and yes, aren't baby smiles the best?  :Smile:

----------


## mono

> If there are any Christian's in the group here I strongly recomend The Confessions Of Saint Augustine. He is a doctor of the church, and this stuff i not light reading. He makes real literature, and that is not just because he lived in the early Middle Ages. -Be careful when reading Whitman with this question posed aswell.


I loved St. Augustine's _The Confessions_, and probably intend to read it again soon, as I do not think one can fully absorb all of the material in that work through one read, no matter how thorough.
Perhaps this does not seem the best area for the forum, but how do you feel about Walt Whitman? I love his poetry, and, yes, some of his ideas expressed through his work seem . . . unique, but I understand and feel very open to others' opinions.  :Smile:

----------


## atiguhya padma

Many people today claim that life lacks purpose. I think that says a lot about how comfortable we have become as a species. If we had to fight harder for the survival of our species (and who knows, in a few centuries time, if not sooner, we may have to), then we might feel more purpose to life.

I don't believe that an individual's sense of purpose has much meaning beyond the individual concerned (unless that individual's purpose is altruistic). Indeed, it may well be the case that when a majority of a population is more concerned with individual than collective purpose, then that may be an indication of future population decline.

----------


## Nerd

I think the latin proverb 'carpe diem' is applicable here. It echos Herrick's sentiment of "Gather ye rosebuds.."

Our purpose is to live life to the fullest -- to add something imaginative, or whathaveyou -- and the only way to do that is to treat life like a pond: jump in.

----------


## Loki

Nice, Nerd.

I think everybody has their own view on "the purpose of life"...it has so many potential meanings. I think yours is possibly one of the best. Live life to the full - and this doesn't mean buying a lot of things, getting a lot of money, or being excessively epicurean...rather, I think, it's something about being satisfied with little things, like the opening of a bud, the glorious colour of the sky...noticing the world around you...

Yes...Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,/Old time is fast a-flying...had to set that to a song once...I still remember putting in the bars where the accents were... :Wink:

----------


## indrihama

There is no guiding principle behind the explosion of a star or the replication of a virus; they are simply cosmic occurences. Human life is no different. It is a random and purposeless phenomenon. Unfortunately, humans acquired a deep self-awareness through the process of evolution. As a result, we want to know our purpose and our final destination as individuals. Some find solace in religion, others escape with drugs, and some just try to pass each day without thinking about it. But all of us must one day face the truth that we are here on earth for no reason at all.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Excellently well put indrihama (btw is that John Dryden enclosed in your avatar?) 

Is life really so random though? 

Why did we develop self-awareness? Almost every other creature gets by perfectly well without it.

----------


## indrihama

Atiguhya Padma,

(1) My avatar is actually a portrait of Henry Purcell, a 17th century British composer. 

(2) Yes, I believe life is ultimately random. Although, I am still open to the possiblity that there is some grand scheme behind everything. Perhaps, as a human, I am just not able to see it.

(3) I do not know exactly why we developed self awareness; I have not studied evolution enough to be an authority. However, I would guess that it was a by-product of our ability to categorize reality into concepts. We learned to create the concept 'trees-in-general' and the concept 'this-individual-tree'. Then we transferred that same process to ourselves. We created the concept 'humans-in-general' and the concept 'this-individual-human", which then led to the concept of 'I'. I think that the resulting self-awareness has been more of a disadvantage for humans than an advantage. Kurt Vonnegut wrote an interesting book called _Galapagos_ in which humans are allowed to evolve again and the first trait that is shed is self-awareness.

----------


## ~K~

Is the meaning of life a purpose ?
Not necessarily.
we can write all day about things we learn, our goals , dreams and human nature.
I would say this , "the meaning of anything / and everything is life". 6-11-2005~K~

----------


## chmpman

I think Thoreau described an interesting concept of what life's purpose could be in Walden Pond. Learning to know one's self and how the self can be related to nature and one's environment is a very important trait of a person with a 'purpose'.

----------


## atiguhya padma

The problem with that, is that the notion of self has changed quite significantly since Thoreau's day. I think it is generally accepted in psychology, philosophy and relevant areas of science that the self is socially constructed.

----------


## chmpman

It is socially constructed - in my view too - but it's also accepted that periods of solitude are important to reflect and understand the self. And I believe the socially constructed self is only part of the picture. And maybe absolute solitude is not the very best but to limit one's contact with an 'artificial' world is an idea I like.

----------


## Edmond

It's all relative. 
For a romantic, to live the life to the fullest.

----------


## Edmond

It's all relative. 
For a romantic, to live the life to the fullest.
 For a classicist, to live a good life and make sure nothing happens.

I am very passive about purpose of life, when it comes down to it, just staying alive would be a good 'univesal' answer. If you think about it, much what we do now is to stay alive:
Why do I go to school? Because I want a job, a better education yields better job opportunities, better job opportunities yield a higher earning, a higher earning will provide for the basic survival. 
Why do people get rich and get richer then? I don't think to get rich is the purpose of life, the material world ends with subsistence, in my feeble opinion, I believe that a good life(i can't give one single universal answer it is impossible) is a life of a renaissance man, and i have accumulated knowledge according to it, I studied basic arithmtics language, geography, history, but I also is as fascinated by Music as I am fascinated by physics, I think I would die a happy man if my life had been full of activity, I would die a happy man if I was not just a scholar, but an athelete. I would ide a happy man if I was not just an athlete, but a musician. 

When I was in 11th grade, one of my friend asks me to sign his year book, I shocked the classroom when I wrote:" the purpose of life is to fornicate with as many partners and as often as possible" was that a serious response? Maybe. The naive me thought that the entire purpose of life can be sum up by three words:
Emulate (Learning/education)
Accumulate (Wealth/knowledge)
Copulate (biological process)
I guess I was wrong...
E.B

----------


## djtru

The purpose of life is not to be speculated on. It is known, and has been told to us. The purpose of life is to glorify God, to serve him, for that is the only way in which man can achieve true happiness. It is not through sin, nor material goods, nor through busyness that we can be happy, it is through God, and the path of the straight and narrow.

----------


## Edmond

What if I don't have a religion, then is my life meaningless? should I commit suicide because my life has no meaning?




> The purpose of life is not to be speculated on. It is known, and has been told to us. The purpose of life is to glorify God, to serve him, for that is the only way in which man can achieve true happiness. It is not through sin, nor material goods, nor through busyness that we can be happy, it is through God, and the path of the straight and narrow.


That's exactly what I said, "It's all relative" for someone who worship his god, his life is just that, but for others it's whatever he thinks he should be doing.

----------


## mono

> When I was in 11th grade, one of my friend asks me to sign his year book, I shocked the classroom when I wrote:" the purpose of life is to fornicate with as many partners and as often as possible" was that a serious response? Maybe. The naive me thought that the entire purpose of life can be sum up by three words:
> Emulate (Learning/education)
> Accumulate (Wealth/knowledge)
> Copulate (biological process)
> I guess I was wrong...


This reminds me of one of my previous college professors, who specialized in evolutionary psychology and biology. Having proceeded far ahead of our class schedule, the class debated with her idea that everything humans do, big or small, no pun intended, we do for sex and intimacy.
One student would ask: "then, why do we go to school?" Our professor would answer: "to eventually find a good job, impress others with your education, elope with the most ideal mate, and . . ."
Another student would ask: "why do I brush my teeth every morning?" The professor would answer: "to enhance your appearance, and increase your chances of attracting others."
Though I cannot help but disagree with some of her concepts, we all had a good laugh.  :FRlol:

----------


## blp

> This reminds me of one of my previous college professors, who specialized in evolutionary psychology and biology. Having proceeded far ahead of our class schedule, the class debated with her idea that everything humans do, big or small, no pun intended, we do for sex and intimacy.
> One student would ask: "then, why do we go to school?" Our professor would answer: "to eventually find a good job, impress others with your education, elope with the most ideal mate, and . . ."
> Another student would ask: "why do I brush my teeth every morning?" The professor would answer: "to enhance your appearance, and increase your chances of attracting others."
> Though I cannot help but disagree with some of her concepts, we all had a good laugh.


I agree with your professor, especially after the documentary on feminine desire that was on here in England last night. There was a Dutch sex researcher on (why are these people always Dutch?) explaining how the effect on the brain of orgasm was very very similar to that of heroine or cocaine - and the reason for that was that it was nature giving us an incentive to procreate.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<the effect on the brain of orgasm was very very similar to that of heroine or cocaine - and the reason for that was that it was nature giving us an incentive to procreate.>

Yet I don't see hordes of unattached women begging for a fix. Do you?

----------


## Plechazunga

> The purpose of life is not to be speculated on. It is known, and has been told to us. The purpose of life is to glorify God, to serve him, for that is the only way in which man can achieve true happiness. It is not through sin, nor material goods, nor through busyness that we can be happy, it is through God, and the path of the straight and narrow.



Was God and his purpose truely known to us the element of faith would be devoid of meaning and God would be another tyrant. Furthermore if the point of God is to give meaning then one could say that all religion is reduced to a comodification of God and those who follow him. Lastly, if the purpose of life was to glorify God, then we have to reach the conclusion that those who are happiest are those who glorify him the best and that all distance from God and the optimum means to glorify Him results from an inability to find purpose and meaning in life. Are all none Christians unhappy? Which is this particular branch of Christianity that results in ultimate happiness? What kind of God creates for his own glorification?

----------


## adilyoussef

This question, that I have been also asking myself, is a little bit difficult to be answered. It really deppends of the kind of people we are. If you follow a religion, the question is already answerd by your religion. If not, life is meaningless for you. You my warship God, seek pleasur or seclude yourself in an isolated place if that is sutable for you and make a purpose for your life. For some, life is meaningless, for others it is a track leading to another one, others consider it as a weel including death and rebirth in other coditions according to the kind of person you were, and as a test for other kinds of people. It really depends on our believes and cultur. Whether you set a purpose in your life or it is set upon you, by the end you will die. Think deaply about it rather than regrating past mistakes and things that should be done. It's your life it is not mine, so it is up to you to live it the way you see fit.

----------


## NewWorldOrder

> Was God and his purpose truely known to us the element of faith would be devoid of meaning and God would be another tyrant. Furthermore if the point of God is to give meaning then one could say that all religion is reduced to a comodification of God and those who follow him. Lastly, if the purpose of life was to glorify God, then we have to reach the conclusion that those who are happiest are those who glorify him the best and that all distance from God and the optimum means to glorify Him results from an inability to find purpose and meaning in life. Are all none Christians unhappy? Which is this particular branch of Christianity that results in ultimate happiness? What kind of God creates for his own glorification?


But to what kind of God do you refer in the first place ?  :Biggrin: 
- Is it the nature (its Law) like the PC processor ?
- Is it the Gods who uses the Law of Nature who would have created us like we use the PC processor to create 3D world ?
Then we are just stuffs or slaves or sheeps. What the purpose of the sheeps for us ? Just to eat, entertain or work animal  :Smile: 
- Is it the Ultimate God who created the Gods who created the Gods who created us but then is he even conscious of us since we are not ourselve conscious of each cell of our body ?

----------


## Plechazunga

The word "God" itself implies there is only one. As to the nature of God, it would depend on who you ask.

----------


## Lauralou

One of the most inspiring books I have ever read is Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor E Frankl. I am a Catholic and for me meaning comes from God. But I liked this book because it is based on true experiences of being in a concentration camp. Frankl is a psychatrist so he is able to annalyze his thoughts and experiences as well as his peers. He claims there are two was to find meaning in one's life which surprisingly aren't directly realated to God or a super natural high power: One is because they love someone and that love makes life worth living or they have a "project" like a novel or a talent that they feel they must complete that no one else but they can. This may sound odd but if u read the book it makes perfect sense. God fits into the love category. It talks about finding meaning in life even when u suffer. If ne one has read it let me know what u think of it. 

 :Smile:  Lauren  :Banana:  <--- this is so random but thats what makes it so funny

----------


## mohan kumar

Recently I read a book by Thomas Moore called Dark nights of the soul.It discusses about the dark sides of one's life. It also speaks about about one's problems at his lonly hour-long illness or death of a loved one. Twenty years ago Ilost my father and my girlfriend one after another.Sudden demise of a loved one (be it mother,father or friend) leaves one shattered.Suddenly the meaning of life is not known to you.You don't know where to turn?Your mind suddenly becomes blank.Something seems to pushing you deep inside a void.You start asking questions?Whatis life? What is its purpose? Thomas Moore book has a thrapeutic valve in it.

------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------
What is self?-Consciousness is self.

----------


## confused1

i had a dream about how to get to the meaning of life faster. my friend, in my dream, told me that the meaning of finding life lies in one of the polyatomic ions squared..!!! i know what does this have to do with anything, but i think now about it and it has to do with everything. life is simple yet we make things come out to be soo complicated that we confuse ourselves and miss the POINT. so perhaps then that the meaning of life has always been and is probably right IN FRONT OF US but we just missed it in questioning IT..good luck out there for all those "searchers"..>!

_what is more important finding the MEANING OF LIFE or LIVING LIFE?_
*i think i would like to spend my life LIVING and not dwelling..."LIfe will come to YOU" (-my uncle told me this ^_^)

----------


## atiguhya padma

Life is not simple.

----------


## NewWorldOrder

> To ask the meaning of life one has to define life itself. What is life, after all? I know; something that moves, respires, grows, reproduces, reacts to environmental stimuli, etc. But is that all? A virus, for example, does not fit into the definition of life.


It's funny because when I was making my engineering class I had to answer this question at an oral exam: "is the virus a living organism ?"
I answered yes because biologically a virus has not DNA but still has an RNA, it parasits others to reproduce but it is clearly the same kind of reproduction than any other more sophisticated organism.

If I was asked rather "Is the virus conscious (of being alive) ?" I would probably have answered no because he doesn't have a brain like superior animals. I think that the reason we ask such question is just due to the fact that we have a brain. But this question could also be asked for any non-brained organism. 

Maybe the question is just brain artefact and there is no purpose in life, maybe there is some gods that may be our fathers or ... just children playing with us as toys  :Biggrin:

----------


## Scheherazade

> Life is not simple.


D'oh! Why wasn't I warned before??? 

 :Wink:

----------


## adilyoussef

> D'oh! Why wasn't I warned before???


  :FRlol:  so now you are. Better to be on guards.  :FRlol:

----------


## NewWorldOrder

> As Betrand Russel said (which quoted form the book), "Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless".


I used to think Bertrand Russell was brilliant and humanistic but not any more when I discovered that SIR Bertrand Russell (because he is a British Lord) wrotes things like

"Really high minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."

and if you read in context it's even worse :

"War, so far, has had no great effect on this increase [of population], which continued throughout each of the world wars.... War has hitherto been disappointing in this respectbut perhaps a bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors would be free to procreate freely without making the world too full." Russell went on, "this state of affairs may be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."

Bertrand Russell in "The Impact of Science on Society"
published in 1955 so AFTER nazism period.

----------


## subterranean

Hi, NWO. Yes, I'm not really in to Russell's either. I quoted his words in the attempt to show whether there's a relationship between the existance of divine being (God), and the purpose of life. As we all know, Russell was an Agnostic.

----------


## NewWorldOrder

> Hi, NWO. Yes, I'm not really in to Russell's either. I quoted his words in the attempt to show whether there's a relationship between the existance of divine being (God), and the purpose of life. As we all know, Russell was an Agnostic.


It is natural that you quoted Russell because you ignored the whole nature of the man like 95% of people - in fact like myself a few months ago - but now you know who the guy is, then it's up to you to quote him in your conciousness.

Hitler was supposedly christian but I don't think any christian today would quote him. As for me I have decided to never quote Russell like I used to because he represents the horror of nazism.

----------


## starrwriter

> Hitler was supposedly christian but I don't think any christian today would quote him. As for me I have decided to never quote Russell like I used to because he represents the horror of nazism.


Russell was a sanctimonious hypocrite since he never tired of villifying Nietzsche as a warmonger and the progenitor of Nazism. He even said Nietzsche was a misanthrope because any woman could whip his butt.

----------


## NewWorldOrder

> Russell was a sanctimonious hypocrite since he never tired of villifying Nietzsche as a warmonger and the progenitor of Nazism. He even said Nietzsche was a misanthrope because any woman could whip his butt.


I agree Nietzsche was unfortunately associated to nazism whereas he wasn't even alived. And when I read Nietzsche I can't see any real nazi idea (just crude thoughts may be) like when I read some book of Russell : I wonder if it wasn't done on purpose to kick off Nietzsche and substitute Russell as the great humanitist philosopher who in facade joined Einstein for a United World whereas he is the beast of Apocalypse  :Biggrin:

----------


## ThatIndividual

I also agree that Nietzsche's association with Nazism is unfortunate, however, I can see it. While I do believe that it's a misinterpretation, I think that it's easy to see how Hitler's ethnic cleansing came from the social darwinist undertones of _Thus Spake Zarathustra._ 

I love Nietzsche, don't get me wrong. I just don't think it's that hard to see why people associate the two. Did you know that Hitler passed out a copy of two books for every German Nazi soldier to carry in his backpack during the Holocaust and WWII? One was the Nazi party handbook and the other, none other than Nietzsche's _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ .

Quite a dangerous misreading, no?

----------


## subterranean

I don't really understand your point. What do you refer as the nature of the man here?

And have you even read the book I was reffering to in my first post in this thread? 




> It is natural that you quoted Russell because you ignored the whole nature of the man like 95% of people - in fact like myself a few months ago - but now you know who the guy is, then it's up to you to quote him in your conciousness.
> 
> Hitler was supposedly christian but I don't think any christian today would quote him. As for me I have decided to never quote Russell like I used to because he represents the horror of nazism.

----------


## Bmblbee

The purpose of life is to externalize one's idea (or best attempt at the "form") of oneself and then to recognize it in the waking world.

----------


## atiguhya padma

It might be better to ask what is a life of purpose?

----------


## simon

A life of purpose is one in which the person leading that life seeks to help others lead a life of purpose, that being to achieve harmony with the universe and most importatnly the inhabitants of it. The sum total for those who don't want to read all the print: don't be a jerk (since those nouns referring to donkeys are edited).

----------


## Phaedra

I do not believe there is a purpose to life. To me, it's meaningless, in the sense there is not any specific or general aim for us to be here. Having said that, I do think life is worth living (though there are times in which I contemplate the possibility of suicide). Anyway, if I really committed that act, it would be for concluding that _my life_  was not worth living, but not life in a generic sense.

----------


## topomeas

I think it is not necessory to add some purposes to life. Maybe not everything which exist in the world has a purpose. Life is life, just an "exist". Even the whole human being dose not have a purpose. Who knows where we human being will go, what is our destination.

----------


## starrwriter

> I do not believe there is a purpose to life. To me, it's meaningless, in the sense there is not any specific or general aim for us to be here. Having said that, I do think life is worth living (though there are times in which I contemplate the possibility of suicide). Anyway, if I really committed that act, it would be for concluding that _my life_  was not worth living, but not life in a generic sense.


Through early morning fog I see
Visions of the things to be,
The pains that are withheld for me,
I realize and I can see...

That suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please.

The game of life is hard to play,
I'm going to loose it anyway,
The loosin' card I'll someday lay;
So this is all I have to say...

That suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please.

The only way to win is cheat
And lay it down before I'm beat
And to another give my seat
For that's the only painless feat.

That suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please.
And you can do the same thing if you please.
*-- theme song from MASH*

----------


## ChuckBukowski

I think Nick Drake wrote that, he wrote a lot of dark music/poetry. He aslo wrote that "Pink Moon" song which was on those VW commercials, its pretty happy

----------


## starrwriter

> I think Nick Drake wrote that, he wrote a lot of dark music/poetry. He aslo wrote that "Pink Moon" song which was on those VW commercials, its pretty happy


Johnny Mandel and Mike Altman wrote to theme song of MASH.

----------


## Scheherazade

And Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay for You Only Live Twice.

----------


## silver

> Maybe it is better to have a mutable purpose, one that is forever changing or changable. For me personally, the question of purpose should be preceded by the question: does there have to be a purpose to life? if there is no purpose, would this make a big difference to how you see yourself or how you live? Can a purposeless life be worth living?


Socrates says , " life unexamined is not worth living. "
God has given you life, now it is YOU who gives meaning to it.
with regards
silver
[email protected]

----------


## Omniscience

You know, I spent a long time contemplating "the purpose of life," and I have decided that (if we do have a purpose) it is futile to bother with trying to understand it now...no one, not even the most enlightened, can tell you with absolute certainty that he/she knows what our purpose here is. I look at it like this: if there is a purpose, we will find out soon enough when we die. It is sort of like not understanding something until you "get it" at another stage in your life. Death is just another stage of existence (in my opinion), and (hopefully) we will become enlightened as to what reasons (if any) we have for being here. 

Okay, so for example, college. You hear the stories about what happens, you might even visit the campus, but you are never really going to know and understand college and campus living until your first year attending. Then, once you become emerged in it, you are part of it, and just know what it is like. Then when people ask you, "What is college like?" You can tell them, but they won't really know until they experience it. I hope the analogy makes since (if you haven't attended college, you can use pretty much anything for an example: high school, dating, etc. it is all just a matter of the experience which leads to understanding). I mean maybe when we are all dead, in another plane of existence (if there is one), we will look back on our life here on earth and think, "Wow, I can't believe I didn't get it...now I understand." Understanding is the true consequence of experience. No one truly knows anything until they fully experience it, and no one has fully experienced life until death. At least, that is how I look at it.

----------


## Phaedra

> The game of life is hard to play,
> I'm going to lose it anyway,



As I've just finished reading The Myth of Sisyphus, these lines sound very familiar. Yes, we are going to lose it anuway, but that does not mean that playing it is futile. It's worthwhile, I believe, because it's a unique experience, though it may be painful.

The problem sometimes lies in the cards we're dealt.

----------


## Diadem

Simply put, you create your own purpose for living.

----------


## rachel

I remember once coming upon a scripture that rather jolted me.
I had been spending just years on this very question and was feeling tired, tired, tired.
The scripture said this"The whole obligation of man is to know God."

----------


## Yogi

Animals do not have any purpose, they live a predetermined life. They eat what they are used to and live the same life for ever and ever. 

Humans have always exhibited a strong desire to be different. We wanted to understand the self and the world around. Both expands forever. 

This urge to master oneself and the world around became a preoccuption for some and the purpose for others. 

However this search has always eluded most humans. We invariably miss the point in trying to understand the world without understanding the self within. Then, we try to understand the self through the mind which is limited and conditioned. 

Only those who succeed in unraveling the glory of the self, understands the real meaning and the purpose of life.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Purpose! The subject of such misguided effort...fallicy pervades the one who knows not the correct approach to it. Purpose is merely the reason for existence, nothing more. Tell not the architect that he cannot design, tell not the painter that he must be stripped of his canvas! These are the things of purpose, the things of reason! This tangible existence, saturated with the mind and the senses, calls itself life. Purpose resides in every facet of life. Purposes of learning, teaching, living, loving! Above all, purpose lies in life's existence. Is life's purpose not to provide longevity for itself? Our efforts lead us to the future, rather than the present. Life is that which guides itself, there is nothing more. Shall you find purpose in something which contains it not? Nay, thou shall find but a fragment of the fulfillment of what should be. Saturate thy life with purpose, and that is what ye shall find! Enlighten and enrich what seems without purpose, and safeguard that which does. Purpose is reflexive...one need only to find it.

----------


## RemiAnn

Read the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible. It will answer this question. But remember, you have to read the whole book, not just a part.

----------


## mohan kumar

Reading bible, quran or vedha do not solve problems. Why do they unleash reign of terror on innocent civilians. What purpose? In real life some times people who are atheists and fear only their conscience are honest and non-corrupt.

----------


## belle ringer

Ah, the purpose of life, indeed.

Once, I _heard_ someone ask what is our purpose here other than repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Of not being content on just listening from those who came before us, but rather, having this irrational need of biting into the cynical bitterness of the apple ourselves. 

I guess the purpose of life is to have that choice of making a mistake or not. In my opinion, everything we do has a purpose. A point A in order to get to a point B. Every nuance, every bit of feeling, of experience comprises the purpose or goal to which we are headed for--an answer, The Answer.

_Life was meant to be lived, and curiosity must be kept alive. One must never, for whatever reason, turn his back on life.
--Eleanor Roosevelt_

----------


## Peacemaster

Hey you guys, as-la-mu-alai-kum (Peace be upon you)

Why is this topic ending at the end of 2005? We should keep this topic up to date and discuss. Let me state first of all, when you want to look for your purpose in life you have to both go deep within yourself as well expand your knowledge and acquire experience. Responding to the remark about not to be religious, but be spiritual, is not totally true. Being spiritual goes along with religion, therefore it should be seen as one. Since we are in this time in such an influential world (20th century A.D.) the complete purpose of creation has been deviated (Materialism). 

Now, there are main believes in the world; christianity (could be covered under Judaism, Hinduism, Buddism, etc. = 48% of the worlds population ) , Islam (22%) and Atheism (14%). Most of them last believers (atheists) believe in science or simply "nothing" because they have mostly denied the believe of christianity (most atheists are westerners). Let me mention, that if the largest population of the world believes in christianity (Islam second largest), why is it that the bible contains thousands of errors, contraditions and out of reality verses, conflicting with modern science and knowledge? And why have during the centuries the christians denied the understanding of Islam????

I am 21 years old former christian from the Netherlands and have inherited the religion from my family (catholic). Though, I have not simply accepted its teachings (blind believe). A short time ago I have converted to Islam, not because I can get 4 wifes, haha, but of its purity. Islam and the Quran teach very precise things relating to daily life, how to optain purity, peace and good friendships, and avoid troubles, sins and anger. Furthermore the authenticity of the book (Quran) is miraculous, cause it contains over 1000 verses relating to science and non of them (so far proved and correctly interperted) are in contradition with modern science. This book is genious (I am currently studying it, plus the bible) and I can advise you to do the same. 

To get a good overview of the authenticity of holy scriptures in the past, I advise you to read the book "The Bible, The Quran and Science" by Dr. Maurice Burcaille (translated from French). It opens your eyes!!

The purpose of creation is to submit your will to god (Allah) and do nothing else than good, create peace among the people. By Jihad (no it does not mean holy war but it means "to struggle!!") you will be tested by Allah and if you pass the test, you will be admitted to the gardens of paradise, and that aint no bull!!!

Peace be upon you and that you may find your purpose in life. 

Cuno

----------


## superunknown

I'm an atheist, so I can't really turn to religion to find meaning. My view on it is that there is no meaning to life, life just is, you are given these abilities to think, see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and you make of it what you want to. I suppose that's a pretty existentialist outlook. I suppose if I were to be anything I woud be a Buddhist (particularly Theravada Buddhism, the kind that doesn't have a God) as I've studied it quite a bit and its beliefs appear very sensible and logical (logic being something which many religions lack), but the only problem with that is that I agree with everything Buddhism says except for reincarnation, and that sort of defeats the entire purpose. I do believe that it is possible for human beings to achieve a state of complete and utter detachment from the ego, though, and that ultimately this is the definition of enlightenment. I don't think I am likely to reach that state in my lifetime, though.

----------

