|
|
| Author |
Message |
vinoad
|
|
The Meaning of life.
| 
Nov 3 09:44 UTC 1998 |
My friend Prem came home as usual expecting to be welcomed by
his pet dog, Rambo, only to learn that Rambo was dead. He latter said,
'I had grown up with him, I played and danced with him, he has bitten
my shoes and dirtied my uniform and suddenly I find that he is gone,
never to be seen again. Life seems so empty and meaningless.'
What do you say? Life seems so hollow and absolutely
meaningless. isinit. In a poem about Rambo he had written, 'The garden
you ruled is now your grave.'
|
| 16 responses total. |
i
|
|
response 1 of 16:
|
Nov 4 01:28 UTC 1998 |
Like warp and woof, life and death exist only together. Of such is the
fabric of our world woven, and we can deny neither in this world, whether
we stand where the cloth is woven of gold or where it is woven of goat's
hair. The meaning of life is not found in the threads, however proud, but
in the pattern of the fabric; for the threads come and go as chance and the
weaver will, but the pattern is the true Design of the Maker.
(My apologies if this is too philosophical and distant when you need
reassurance and comforting.)
|
vinoad
|
|
response 2 of 16:
|
Nov 8 09:58 UTC 1998 |
(Sorry to have used your login. Hope you dont mind.)
Many guys in this world need somebody to be involved with. This
involvment keeps them happy and invloved and it is so strong that
people seem get a new meanin to their life because of this involvement.
The beleif in god by a large number of people can be explained as a
conseqence of this requirement. The belief in life after death can also
be attributed to this. (You can belive that he hasn`t exactly died.
You will be meetin him in heaven soon. He is happy in heaven and this
is just a short seperation.This helps you come out of your depression)
If the person or thing you are involved with suddenly vanishes you are
depressed.
This is not a answer to your question but just a further explanation
to your question. We have to look into why people need other people to
give a " meaning to (his/her)life". I don`t know about that but I guess
its necessary for keeping the society together and in turn for the
survival of the society and the individual. We can see the same kind of
depression with animals too.
Well said walter, but I don`t think you answer vinoad`s question. But
you are perfectly right.. the meaning of life resides in the pattern of
the fabric and not in the threads.
Did I get your point vinoad. Or am I totally out of track. Get me to
the right track if I am out of track.
rkk
|
vinoad
|
|
response 3 of 16:
|
Nov 12 16:16 UTC 1998 |
Both of you guys seemed to agree that the meaning of life
resides in the pattern of the fabric and not in the threads. Well, I
disagree completely! Each thread has its own meaning however
insignificant it might be and every thread contributes to the overall
meaning which has no meaning but for the individual meanings. I hope
you got what I am saying.
Its very easy to say life comes and goes. But you will have to
put yourself in Prem's position before you answer the question. Its
been a year since it happened and if I still remember it, just think
how much upset he must have been.
Heaven is out of question and so is the thought that God
decided so and all is for the good. What happened was a very
unfortunate and devastating incident, Rambo is gone forever. What I am
asking is that should we accept death just because it is inevitable or
is there a deeper meaning to life because of death. If so what is it?
You are on the right track RKK and philosophy is also what I want,
Walter. So please continue on your lines.
|
rkk
|
|
response 4 of 16:
|
Nov 12 19:40 UTC 1998 |
Well.. I think u didn`t get what we( me and walter) want to say. We
don`t mean to say that the individual threads have no meaning. But
viewing things in totality is sometimes the best way to go about
things. When u ask "what is mind?" , the answer is not something like..
Mind is a collection of neurons,each neuron having a meaning but no
meaning on the overall. Mind,as I understand is something like the
hardware + software. The interaction between the neurons also give a
meaning to mind, and these are pretty tough to figure out, though the
actions of a single neuron might be relatively easy to find out.
Am I right walter?
Though I talk about viewing things in totality, I also respect the
individual. But the individuals themselves fail to represent the
situation completly. The pattern here represents the interaction
between the threads, and the threads themselves. That doesn`t mean that
the meaning of life lies on all humanity taken together. We can
consider only one individual human to answer this question. But looking
at the cells(or molecules), which represents the individual cells or
molecules, might not help solve the problem. Hence the statement .... .
Regarding the question " Does death give a deeper meaning to life?", I
need some time to give my thoughts. This question provokes a flood of
thoughts in my mind and I need some time to bring them to orde and
enter something meaningful.
Are you out there walter... Do you accept my understanding of your
message.
|
i
|
|
response 5 of 16:
|
Nov 14 03:34 UTC 1998 |
Well, i could tell you that i'm out here, how would you know that i was
telling you the truth? ;)
To ask "what is the meaning of life" is usually to ask two questions, one
objective and one subjective. The objective goes deeper into the beginnings
and heart of reality than science can follow. What is the root cause of the
universe? Is/are there (a) god(s)? What role will (or can) I/my family/my
nation/humanity/all life play in the fate of life and the universe?
Many religions offer answers to these questions, though they do not agree.
Speaking with far less assurance and more authority, science can offer
sketches of some parts of the answers. With time and imagination, some
can build visions from science's meager offerings, visions which they find
no less wonderful than what religions offer.
To accept such a vision as the Truth is to proclaim that the objective
question is answered, the ultimate Truth known. Very few, so very few
people find their quest for the Truth ended by proclaiming such objective
Truth to be a treasure found and possessed.
And so the quest of the questioner moves on, seeking the far more subtle
subjective mean of life. Here science cannot follow. Priests, prophets,
and philosophers may all offer visions of the answer, but what they offer
cannot be taken. For this inner truth is not knowledge that the wise can
write or speak, but a part of tree of the soul. Wind and rain, light and
darkness from without can nurture the tree, bend the tree, perhaps even
destroy the tree, but they cannot mold the tree, which grows as it wills
from the soils of the soul.
(Not an answer, but the question is too beautiful to answer quickly.)
|
vinoad
|
|
response 6 of 16:
|
Nov 14 07:17 UTC 1998 |
Thank you, both of you guys for thinking about my question. I am
waiting for the answer. If some one can get it, it is you. So please
keep trying. RKK,I fully accept your concept about the threads and
their interations contributing to the overall pattern. Your objective
and subjective concept too is perfect, Walter, but science is defined
as reason and rationality. So I think science can follow a man
everywhere for man is a emotional being guided by reason. The science I
am talking about is the complete one. Even philosophy is a part of it.
Inner truth is a feeling not a knowledge agreed but the feeling can be
brought about by wisdom.
Isinit there anybody else who is interested in this, except the three
of us. Whay don't you join us Carson,Dang and others?
|
rkk
|
|
response 7 of 16:
|
Nov 15 21:32 UTC 1998 |
Well.. I do accept Vinoad`s view of science. But if anybody objects
to it, you can call it philosophy or whatever you like.Let`s address
the question directly now.
"Does death give a meaning to life? Why does it exist even though we
don`t like it. Should we accept it as a fact and lead our life?". To
start with, what`s death. I define it as a particular change in the
form of "human" matter. If something doesn`t have death, we call it
eternal or ever-living. Do eternal things really exist? When I was very
young, I used to think that stars are eternal. Then I came to know that
even stars have a life( and death). The star is born, it lives and then
it dies. So, can we say stars have life?!! .
The point I want to make is that death does give a meaning to life.
Death being a fact controls many of our basic instints which stem from
evolution. I can`t imagine life without death. If anything is eternal,
then it can`t really find out whether it is eternal or not, since it
will have to wait infinite(really infinite, not realtively infinite)
years to find that out. If there was a life-after death, we don`t know
it and that doesn`t seem to help. Is death bad?( I mean the existence
of it). I don`t think so, but everybody won`t agree with this,
especialy prem. Why can`t people ( most of them I think) accept death
as a fact? I do understand the emotions of prem but... .
I got myself into a nice mess here!! What do you guys think?
And walter ... I believe you are telling the truth. Not only that, the
writing style in both messages( supposedly yours) are very similar. So,
I believe that both are by the same person. Ofcourse I could be wrong,
but the probability of that seems small to me.
|
vinoad
|
|
response 8 of 16:
|
Nov 16 09:13 UTC 1998 |
RKK, you got yourself into a nice mess alright. All this stuff about
waiting for infinite years to know you are immortal is nice to hear but
doesn't fit here. As you said even if there is life after death we are
mortals because we don't know about it. Hence we will be immortal or we
will act as one if we thought, we are immortals. And all humans think
themselves as immortals when they are young, they realise the truth
only when they see people around them die (not when they see toys break
or stars die!). The real understanding of it comes only when the death
is of a loved one. Prem has faced the blow but we are talking without
the experience. I don't know about you, Walter . So the question still
stands.
|
rkk
|
|
response 9 of 16:
|
Nov 18 13:51 UTC 1998 |
Well .. I just got carried away a bit. But I was tempted to think
about these things. My thoughts actually end up in reality.. does death
really exist? Well .. lets cut that out for the moment. But life is
still unimaginable without death for a rational being. Death decides
the basics of evolution and almost most of our basic instincts.
"Survival" won`t have a meaning without death. What do you say?
|
vinoad
|
|
response 10 of 16:
|
Nov 20 16:56 UTC 1998 |
Life without death is a very fantastic thought and so you must think
in those lines. Life goes on inspite of death, but do I really die, no,
my genes, atleast half of then will live in my son. So he continues
life, even mine. He carries all the things my body learnt through
evolution but he doesn't carry my memories and the emotion attached
with them. If I can pass it on to my son then I will become immotal! I
can go on this way giving many possiblilites. I am sure one of them
will become real in the future. And hence, I am interested in that from
the intellectual point of veiw and also from the sentimental. Think in
those lines. This topic has greater complexities and concequences than
you think!
|
i
|
|
response 11 of 16:
|
Nov 25 01:19 UTC 1998 |
Re #6 - the ends of a fan are easy to grasp, but the beauty lies between them.
What is life, that you would give it meaning?
What is meaning, that you would give it to life?
|
vinoad
|
|
response 12 of 16:
|
Nov 25 19:39 UTC 1998 |
Walter, welcome back. You are back with a bang alright! I couldn't make
head or tail out of what you said regarding the fan and beauty. But the
questions were just great. I was initially awe struck and speechless.
Life, is the most basic aspect. Anything that takes in food, processes
it, performs some function using the generated energy on its own accord
is called life. This is the first axiom of all and its a pity that this
has to be so ambiguous but it cannot be helped.
Meaning, this one requires a lot of thought. Every intelligent (for
heaven's sake don't ask me what intelligence is) life seeks a meaning
for its life. I'm sure you can understand what I mean.
So the question is given the gift of being immortal should I accept it
or not. If I am convinced that its good to accept immortality why
shouldn't I work to acheive it on my own accord?
|
i
|
|
response 13 of 16:
|
Nov 28 01:39 UTC 1998 |
My apologies if i am at times too cryptic....
In #6 (to make a very brief & rough summary), you noted how limited and
dichotomous my earlier breakdown of the meaning of life into scientific
and spiritual extremes was. Have you ever seen a fan that was a work of
art?
Though you define it well, i do not ask you to define life. I ask you
to define what about life leads you to feel that it can have meaning,
that it should have meaning, that you need to give it meaning, and in
each how life differs from other things which you feel cannot have meaning,
need not have meaning, or you don't need to give meaning.
Apologies, but i do not agree with your statement that intelligent life
seeks a meaning for itself. Perhaps i do not understand your thought,
perhaps your assertions is implicit in how you define intelligence. In
some ways, i would say that life (or intelligence) *is* meaning. My
question to you is what qualities meaning has that lead you to to feel
that it can be, that it should be, that you need to assign it to
life, and in each again as i asked for life.
What is immortality, that you might wish it? Life, health, comfort,
and happiness without end? The inability to die? To be remembered and
revered by generations uncounted? To have life so long as you wish to
live? To win free of the fear of your own death?
|
vinoad
|
|
response 14 of 16:
|
Nov 29 06:59 UTC 1998 |
Walter, thank you for being so interested and considerate. I
misunderstood your question and thought that you were asking me to
define life and I felt that you were changing the direction of the
discussion. But now I see that you are perfectly in track, sorry for
the confusion.
I don't exactly know what makes me think that life should have
meaning. But it roughly like this. Non-living thing as for as I can see
are passive. They just exist but living things are active, they live,
they eat, work, fight and feel. At times they experience extreme pain.
All this leads me to think that life must really have a meaning.
May be you are right, life itself has a meaning. But yet I can say
that a large percentage of people seek a meaning for their life. The
people who are very happy are not the ones who conclude that life is
meaning itself. For it is a passive definition, you can live whatever
way you can. Instead I feel that one must define life's meaning such
that it is something he can seek and acheive all along his life. For I
define life as active. You don't just accept things, you go on and
change them. Any from of life is meaningful but evolution improves it
adding more beauty and meaning. In the same way we must go on.
The immortality I wish may not the inablity to die. Its not health
and comfort forever. Its not being remembered for generations (not
because I don't want it but because I am sure of acheiving this.) The
immortality I want is to posses or atleast pass on my memories and the
emotions attached with them.
I am going home for my holidays and so I won't be able to discuss
for another month. Sorry. I will come here as soon as I am back. Do
come back in the first week of january.
|
rkk
|
|
response 15 of 16:
|
Jan 3 14:24 UTC 1999 |
Regarding the definition of life, I think a definition might fit.
Though this has nothing to do with the meaning of life as such, we
might comfort ourselves that there exists a scientific dissimilarilty
between the living and non-living. I have been going through some GA(
genetic algorithms ) stuff when I found a sentence stating that GA is
based on biological motivations and GA disobeys the second law of
thermodynamics. Then it struck me that all living forms behave like the
GA and disobey the second law of thermo-dynamics. Maybe living forms
can defined as a group of matter that disobeys the law of increasing
entropy. Now entropy of a group of matter can be found stastically, and
this definition seems to be a scientific one, though I don`t know what
complications might arise if this defintion of living is accepted.
Regarding the meaning of life, I do think Vinoad`s got a point. You
too have a point Walter, but the meaning of life is what we decide to
be the meaning of life and I am sure we will far happier if we give a
meaning to life. For many years evolution had decided the path of the
life-tree, but with the coming of intelligence we have the power to
overrule evolution and make our own rules. Whatever rules we make must
be wise and must give a meaning to life, or must stem from the meaning
of life. But what is the meaning of life.. Is it just survival,
immortality. Or is there something more? I don`t know. We can define
the new rule of evolution as the survival of all, but I don`t know what
such a rule will achieve. Our goal will then be to make a better world
for our children and grandchildren.. and their goal will be the same
and so on. But such a rule diminishes the importance of the individual.
It says that one individial is not important but the whole colony is..
altruism in other words. I don`t like this. There are some beautiful
emotions which we can feel. The ego for eg. and another one is
wonder,awe(when we realise the enormity of nature, Carl sagan calls
this numinous). These emotions might be at stake in such a altruist
world. But we must also realise that, since we decide our own rules,
survival need not be the only goal.
Why should we survive? What for should our children survive? Such
questions are dangerous, I know. But answering these questions are
important for understanding the meaning of life. Maybe we can define
the meaning of life is to search for the meaning of life. We don`t
exactly know why we came into existence. Neither do we know what we are
to do in the far future. But there is one thing which we are sure of ..
( almost) and that is reason and rationality. We are better off to
answer these questions than our ancestors because we have more data (
and maybe more intelligence and reasoning power) than our ancestors. So
our children will be in a much better off position to answer these
questions. Maybe they will make contact with some advanced civilization
and/or make living things in the laboratary. Maybe it is still to early
to answer this question.. Lets call it "The last question". We might
not have the sufficient data to answer this question. So our goal will
be to collect more data and advance science for a better world for the
future and be a bit more closer to the answer.
Sorry if I have been too technical, but this is also a point we have
to consider. As far as the present is concerned.. different people have
different ideas of life and different goals in life. One guy wants to
be the richest man and another wants fame. He finds some sense of
existense in his name being known all over the world for generations to
come. But as Vinoad said .. real immortality might be in memory and
emotions. But why do you want immortality Vinoad???
|
wisetrout
|
|
response 16 of 16:
|
Apr 25 19:23 UTC 2007 |
Meaning? There is none. :)
|