|
|
| Author |
Message |
cnmne
|
|
The Point
| 
Apr 7 06:46 UTC 1998 |
So, what is the point?
I mean, what is the point of being alive? Why would anyone want to be alive,
or stay alive?
I think some people think the point is to have a good time. To grab as many
happy moments as you have the opportunity to grab. Or is it to make the
largest percentage of your moments happy? In that case it would be best to
spend your whole life high on drugs and then die, I think. Or, maybe you
should graph your life as happiness vs. time (happy times get a positive
value, and sad times a negative value), and the objective is to mazimize the
integral of the function.
Some people think the point is to be a "good" person. The trouble is that
what I think is good isn't necessarily what other people think is good. Heck,
some people argue that what Mother Theresa did wasn't "good", because it
perpetuated the conditions she treated by making them more tolerable, and not
attacking the root cause. Even more basically, lots of people seem to think
that "helping others" is "good". Why, I wonder? Because it makes them
happier? So if happy is good, then we're back to the hedonist model. So why
not just get high all the time, and the hell with everyone else?
For that matter, does one human helping another really qualify as "helping
others"? Sometimes I think of the human race, and the earth itself, as kind
of like one organism, ala the Gaia Hypothesis. Would you congratulate your
spleen for helping out your liver? Or would you figure that one part of an
organism that helps another is just doing its job?
It seems to me more and more like the whole notion of "the point of life is to
be good" has it backwards; rather what we call "goodness" is about maximizing
(locally) the happiness of the race. It's a construct we have made up in
order to be able to live with one another. And we should say, "well, if
you're going to live, you ought to be good in order to make it more
pleasurable for everyone".
But the assumption in there was that people were already alive, and we need to
make the best of it. But that needn't be the case - we could each choose to
die. So why don't we? Is there anything to strive for besides the happiness
of one's self, or the happiness of the race, and is happiness really the best
we can hope for?
What is the point?
|
| 105 responses total. |
n8nxf
|
|
response 1 of 105:
|
Apr 7 10:26 UTC 1998 |
I hate to say this, however, the purpose of life is life. Perhaps not to
a given individual but it is to the species. Otherwise the species dies
off.
Good and happy are only so relative to bad and unhappy. A person who
spends their entire life "happy" would be totally unaware of it and would
probably feel good and bad as well as happy and unhappy while being in
this so-called state of "happiness".
|
janc
|
|
response 2 of 105:
|
Apr 7 13:50 UTC 1998 |
Yep. Life is a process whose only purpose is to continue. Conditions
conducive to continuing are "good" and make living things "happy" while
conditions not conducive to continuing are "bad" and make living things
"unhappy". The point of being alive for me is that millions of years of
evolution has wired me to fundamentally enjoy being alive, and done a
heck of good job of it. I'm happy with that (of course). I intend to
spend my life doing life affirming things. There isn't a great and
cosmic purpose to it all. It's just fun being a living thing in a
living universe.
|
dadroc
|
|
response 3 of 105:
|
Apr 7 14:31 UTC 1998 |
We are pollinators. That is why we can walk.
|
jep
|
|
response 4 of 105:
|
Apr 7 14:44 UTC 1998 |
If you die, there is one certainty, that you can't hope for any more
from your life.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 5 of 105:
|
Apr 7 16:32 UTC 1998 |
One of the things (perhaps *THE* thing) that makes humans unique
among the creatures we know about is that we are capable of deciding
for ourselves what the point of our lives should be.. It's an unusual
position to be in -- take full advantage of it.
|
other
|
|
response 6 of 105:
|
Apr 7 16:59 UTC 1998 |
wow. i haven't seen urchin in a long time. welcome back to agora!
|
senna
|
|
response 7 of 105:
|
Apr 7 18:08 UTC 1998 |
This is a dangerous question to be asking me just now
|
ivynymph
|
|
response 8 of 105:
|
Apr 7 18:52 UTC 1998 |
Given the fact that I believe whole-heartedly that there are enough human
beings on the planet in order to continue the race, were I to take this
question personally and look at it from my own perspective, that being the
only one I actually know, I've yet to decipher the purpose of my life. I
don't know why I keep living, other than the fact that it comes pretty
naturally.
Decidely, I'm living to see what living is for... The more I live, the
clearer and hazier that seems...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 105:
|
Apr 7 20:11 UTC 1998 |
I agree with Klaus and Jan - life has no "purpose" except to carry out
the processes of life, but *I* have purposes, which makes all the difference
in the word. My purposes can be self chosen or imposed upon me by others
and circumstances. This query should not be dangerous to anyone (as
senna suggests) because the question as posed in #0 appears to assume
that the "purpose" is to be preordained and handed to one. But there is
no evidence for that, so what one has is freedom to create one's own
purposes. Freedom seems to be to be much more liberating and desirable
than being forced into a mold of some other choosing.
|
gibson
|
|
response 10 of 105:
|
Apr 8 01:30 UTC 1998 |
I thought the purpose of life is to drive your parents crazy.
|
maeve
|
|
response 11 of 105:
|
Apr 8 03:31 UTC 1998 |
the purpose of my life is to see how many things I can do at once before my
head explodes and I cease to be available for genetic purposes. that or drive
my parents crazy..
|
senna
|
|
response 12 of 105:
|
Apr 8 05:24 UTC 1998 |
No, it's dangerous to me, specifically, because I might accidently decide that
I have no purpose :) Just part of my brutal self-loathing that I sink too
on occasion of feeling rather depressed. Rather fortunately, I don't seem
to be feeling that way.
An Explanation of my purpose would probably be too long and involved, and in
addition would cause many people to suddenly refute who I am and declare that
I am living in a state of deception. At any rate, I don't feel the need to
write it here :)
|
okuma
|
|
response 13 of 105:
|
Apr 8 09:51 UTC 1998 |
The point of life? To do, to be, to live, to love, and fight the good fight.
|
bru
|
|
response 14 of 105:
|
Apr 8 13:45 UTC 1998 |
Actually, the purpose of life depnds on your point of view, or rather, your
belief system. Your purpose in life may be good or bad, relative to the
conditions around you at the time.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 15 of 105:
|
Apr 8 17:33 UTC 1998 |
The question in #0 was what was the *point* of life. Is that different from
does life has a purpose? From one point of view, there is no "purpose" to
life in general, or anything else, for that matter. What is the purpose of
a rock? It has none, it just is. What's the purpose of a porpoise? To swim?
To be food for a shark, or a human? What's the purpose of a papoose? If we
pretend it's a human self-child-carrier (actually the Merriam Webster on-line
dictionary doesn't say that), then, since it's not a naturally occurring
object (as far as I could prove :-), you could say it had the purpose its
makers intended.
Another point of view believes that everything was made by a Creator, and
therefore has the purpose He intended. That would include life, living things.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 16 of 105:
|
Apr 8 18:42 UTC 1998 |
For which there is zero evidence. It is more consistent with observation
to conclude that the concept of "purpose" is not the correct one to apply
to what we observe. The concept of "function" is the better perspective.
The old idea that it is the "purpose" of eyes to see implies that there
is something setting that purpose. There isn't, but it is perfectly true
that the *function* of eyes is to see.
|
jep
|
|
response 17 of 105:
|
Apr 8 18:52 UTC 1998 |
The purpose of something depends on the perspective of the person
defining the purpose, wouldn't you say? God might have a purpose for my
life, I might have a purpose which is different, my parents probably had
something in mind when they decided to have me, and my kids have another
purpose for which they think it's necessary to have me around. My
employer has a purpose for me, and the IRS has one. Those here on Grex
who don't just wish I'd go away, probably have something in mind for me,
too.
There's no such thing as "THE point" when you're talking about your
life. You are, like everyone else, multi-faceted, different to everyone
you ever met or ever will. They can all want something for you and
something from you. They probably do.
You're different to you every day, too -- at least I'm different to me
every day. That's how I keep myself on my toes. There's no way I'm
going to wake up some morning, and realize I accomplished all I set out
to do in my life, and so give up the rest.
Life is not like a multiple-choice exam, with one right answer. It's a
really big take-home essay test. Take all the time you can, and get it
right. Don't turn it in until you have to.
|
maeve
|
|
response 18 of 105:
|
Apr 9 03:33 UTC 1998 |
I like that.. :)
|
senna
|
|
response 19 of 105:
|
Apr 9 06:17 UTC 1998 |
Heh. Makes no sense worrying too much about whether you're doing things
right, either, because then you can't be doing them right while you're
worrying.
|
cnmne
|
|
response 20 of 105:
|
Apr 9 07:13 UTC 1998 |
Most of you seem to seem to think this is a stupid question. The responses so
far range from the flippant:
"the purpose of life is life" (n8nxf)
"because I like it" (janc)
"because if I die I can't hope for more" (jep)
to the defensive:
"there is no pre-ordained purpose" (rcurl)
to the humorous:
"to drive your parents crazy" (gibson)
"to do as many things as possible before my head explodes" (maeve)
to the sanctimonious:
"to do, to be, to live, to love, and fight the good fight" (okuma)
A few of the rest of you were a little less sure of yourselves.
I suppose if I went to a preacher in a small, all-Christian community in the
Midwest in, say, 1850, and asked him why he believed in God, he would probably
declare the question to be stupid, because to ask it would be too much of a
challenge to his beliefs. I would be drummed out of town as a heathen, or
else someone would try to convert "the wayward sheep".
In the same way I have challenged the very prevalent faith that everyone's
life is worth living. I don't have that faith, and I've always thought faith
was a really bad reason to give for making a big decision. (I make small
decisions based on faith; like I turn off the computer at night because I have
faith that I'll be able to turn it on again in the future. Sometimes my faith
is misplaced, though...) I realize there are lots of people who have a
different opinion of faith than I do.
janc: If a politician were running for re-election, and gave as his only
reason for doing so, "Because I'm having fun", would you vote for him?
(Setting aside the points you'd give him for honesty.) Wouldn't you want to
examine what it was he was doing? And is deciding whether to go on living any
less momentous a decision than deciding who to vote for?
jep: What is so great about "hope"? Most of my hopes have led to more pain
than joy.
mcnally: I agree that it's pretty important that humans get to decide whether
their lives have a point, and if so what it is. So how do you decide?
other: Thanks for the welcome back - I didn't think anyone would remember me,
since I haven't emerged for a while.
albaugh: Thanks for pointing out the distinction between "purpose" and
"point". I never implied any assumption about a Creator, though I know some
people define the point of their life in those terms.
rcurl: I don't really see any difference between "purpose" and "function" -
both imply being used by something. Some people think of themselves that way,
I know, but the question is about why people decide to go on living, not what
other people decide for them.
jep: If there is no point, then why go on? Cowardice? Inertia?
Selfishness? Can you give me a reason I'll respect? (Start with a resaon
*you* respect.)
n8nxf brings up a good point about happiness: that it is all relative. If you
have experienced something like, say, being tortured, then having lunch with a
friend might seem better to you than to the friend, if he has never been
tortured. In other words, the example of the "happy integral" I gave in #0 is
fundamentally flawed, since it's the differences between the highs and the
lows that really matter. I'll have to think about it some more.
I submit to you that asking why you should go on living is *not* a stupid
question. It's a really *important* question. Consider that while you are
alive you are using up resources, crowding the planet, and generally altering
the world around you. Maybe that's for the better, maybe for the worse.
Shouldn't that be a factor in whether you decide to go on living?
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 21 of 105:
|
Apr 9 13:36 UTC 1998 |
Why make humans a separate entity from the rest of this world? Trees
use up resources, crowd the planet and generally alter the world
around you. Why isolate humans or any other living thing? Humans,
yourself included, are every bit as much a part of this world as any-
thing else. Just because we are "intelligent" and can comprehend the
possible result of our actions does not isolate us from the world. We
are very much a part of it and very dependent on it. Our "intelligence"
is nothing more than something we use to survive by, much as a turtle
uses its shell. We have very little else going for us in the survival
department.
|
bru
|
|
response 22 of 105:
|
Apr 9 13:50 UTC 1998 |
As far as using up resources goes, if you die you will continue to use up
resource and give nothing back to the planet.
I suppose one other reason for life is potential. You might not see any
reason for life at the moment, but there is the potential that you will do
something really important in the future. Or at least really satisfying.
|
jep
|
|
response 23 of 105:
|
Apr 9 14:11 UTC 1998 |
My answers were serious.
I didn't say there is *no* point to a life, I said there is not *only*
one point, clear, apparent, legitimate, and sufficient for everyone
around. I said there are a *lot* of points to my life, depending on the
perspective of the person whom you ask.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 105:
|
Apr 9 16:24 UTC 1998 |
The difference between "purpose" and "function" is the former implies
a conceptual intent, while the latter is purely how something, well,
functions. My eyes have a function but *I* have purposes (of my own
devising, or imposed upon me). It is worthwhile making the distinction
as many people confuse purpose and function, with a lot of resulting
confusion.
|
