What Is Our Purpose As A Species?

[SullyMcGully]

Gosh, is even the definition of the term "subjective" by nature, subjective? You guys are making my head spin. 

[Zanarkin]

50 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Gosh, is even the definition of the term "subjective" by nature, subjective? You guys are making my head spin. 

No, words can just have multiple meanings. Part of the problem, as i see it, is just a use of vague language. One may use a word in a particular way, while another will use that same word in a slightly different way but give the sentence different meaning. Serious discussion topics can often have these sort of misunderstandings. It is why in Philosophy it is very important to state clearly how you are using certain terms. Particularly overloaded terms like objective, reality, facts, theories, existence, rights, etc.

Edited March 12, 2017 by SlayerX

[ping]

Well, to go back to before the subjective/objective discussion started...

On 11.3.2017 at 1:53 AM, JJ48 said:

If I'm understanding you correctly, we'll have to agree to disagree.  Whether or not something can be proven (or disproven) objectively does not change whether the thing itself is objective.  Either God exists or He doesn't, and His existence or nonexistence is true for all, regardless of belief one way or the other.  

Similarly, either we have the purpose I claimed or we don't.  If I'm right, then everyone has that purpose, even if some reject it or don't acknowledge it.  If I'm wrong, then that's not our purpose, no matter how strongly I may believe it to be.

Sure, A Thing is either true or false, but I fail to see the consequences of your statement. It is also either true or false that our purpose in life is to eat as much eisbein with sauerkraut as possible (in which case my life would a total waste of time), but that realisation won't change my eating habits, let alone my way of life.

So yeah, I prefer to find my purpose on a more human level - the whole cliché of making the world a slightly better place, as boring as it might be, is a lot more appealing to me than basing my life on some 2-3000 years old scriptures and a omnipotent, yet silent being that may or may not be real at all, because a better world is something I can personally accept as something positive.

[JJ48]

8 hours ago, SlayerX said:

No, words can just have multiple meanings. Part of the problem, as i see it, is just a use of vague language. One may use a word in a particular way, while another will use that same word in a slightly different way but give the sentence different meaning. Serious discussion topics can often have these sort of misunderstandings. It is why in Philosophy it is very important to state clearly how you are using certain terms. Particularly overloaded terms like objective, reality, facts, theories, existence, rights, etc.

Excellent point.  Ideally, we would define all such terms at the beginning of the discussion, but that can often be quite lengthy, and we don't always know which terms we will use or which will be misunderstood ahead of time.

[eclipse]

11 hours ago, JJ48 said:

How is pointing out that some sources may be unreliable "low"?  Not to mention, this was hardly the main thrust of my argument.

 

I did not ignore it; in fact, I pointed out that definition 5 still fit with how I was using the word!

Except that this entire argument has been about whether or not a claim is objective, so knowing the proper definitions really is quite important.  Also, please re-read my post above.  It may not be the most eloquent argument, but it made the case that God's existence or non-existence is not dependent on faith.  One may have subjective reasons for believing or disbelieving God's existence, but the fact of God's existence or non-existence is objective.

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this.  If you're saying that my attitude isn't very Christ-like, then I'm sorry and I'll try to work on that.  I tend to be rather passionate about logic and reason, but I'm certainly not intending to attack or belittle anyone personally, and I apologize if it's come across that way.

If that's not what you meant, then could you please explain it a bit more?

WOOHOO FREE TIME!  This is in response to those who believe that mankind's purpose is to follow God.

Rather than attempt to respond to everything (which is pointless nitpicking IMO), I'm going to explain what I see, using the Bible.

First, Jesus' greatest commandment (Mark 12:29-31).  This covers the "what drives my actions?"  How does arguing over the definition of the word "objective" follow this?

Second is a matter of perspective.  People follow Christ for many different reasons.  Likewise, people DON'T follow Christ for many different reasons.  Not everyone sees what you do, and when you claim an absolute truth, you're also indirectly telling the other person that their point of view doesn't matter - and that's NOT how to show love.

Third, Paul had something to say about pointless arguments.

If you want to spread God's word, go for it.  However, it'll be a lot more effective if you can see it from a point of view that isn't your own.  But above all, it must be done out of love.

[Captain Karnage]

as an evolutionist

we're here to reproduce

ensure our smaller versions of ourselves can make it on their own

then die

like every other living organism

possible reincarnation

 

[JJ48]

4 hours ago, eclipse said:

If you want to spread God's word, go for it.  However, it'll be a lot more effective if you can see it from a point of view that isn't your own.  But above all, it must be done out of love.

I agree that it should be done out of love.  Paul himself makes this point in I Corinthians 13.  Again, I apologize if I have come across as unloving.

4 hours ago, eclipse said:

Third, Paul had something to say about pointless arguments.

I see what you mean, but I think I have to disagree about this being "pointless".  What someone believes about absolutes -- and indeed, whether someone even believes there are absolutes -- seems a pretty important factor to me.

4 hours ago, eclipse said:

Second is a matter of perspective.  People follow Christ for many different reasons.  Likewise, people DON'T follow Christ for many different reasons.  Not everyone sees what you do, and when you claim an absolute truth, you're also indirectly telling the other person that their point of view doesn't matter - and that's NOT how to show love.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here.  While it's possible to tell someone they're wrong for unloving reasons, that doesn't mean that telling someone they're wrong is automatically unloving.  John 14:6, among other places, shows Jesus speaking very absolutely.  Is Jesus unloving in such passages?

4 hours ago, eclipse said:

First, Jesus' greatest commandment (Mark 12:29-31).  This covers the "what drives my actions?"  How does arguing over the definition of the word "objective" follow this?

Yes,and with the Great Commission, one of the ways we show our love is to preach the Good News (Gospel).  In Acts 2:14-36, we see Peter starting with Scripture, as he's speaking to Jews.  In Acts 17:22-31, Paul takes a different approach, as he's speaking to the Greeks.  In today's post-modern and even post-truth world, a discussion on the very nature of truth seems an apt starting place to me.

[eclipse]

38 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I agree that it should be done out of love.  Paul himself makes this point in I Corinthians 13.  Again, I apologize if I have come across as unloving.

Dissection time.

38 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I see what you mean, but I think I have to disagree about this being "pointless".  What someone believes about absolutes -- and indeed, whether someone even believes there are absolutes -- seems a pretty important factor to me.

What others believe is not for you to decide.

38 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here.  While it's possible to tell someone they're wrong for unloving reasons, that doesn't mean that telling someone they're wrong is automatically unloving.  John 14:6, among other places, shows Jesus speaking very absolutely.  Is Jesus unloving in such passages?

Jesus can talk about Himself all he wants - He knows far more than us humans.  However, you're straying from what I originally had an issue with, which is your assumption that God is an objective truth, which also implies that whoever believes otherwise is wrong.  I think you'd take great offense if this were framed with another religion (or lack thereof) as humanity's objective truth.

If God wants to be heard, He WILL be heard.

47 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Yes,and with the Great Commission, one of the ways we show our love is to preach the Good News (Gospel).  In Acts 2:14-36, we see Peter starting with Scripture, as he's speaking to Jews.  In Acts 17:22-31, Paul takes a different approach, as he's speaking to the Greeks.  In today's post-modern and even post-truth world, a discussion on the very nature of truth seems an apt starting place to me.

Preaching is great, if the message is received.  Peter/Paul take different approaches because they're preaching to different audiences.  There's a lot of people who are agnostic/atheist on SF.  Implying your superiority by knowing what you think the objective truth is will NOT make them (or someone like me) listen.

[DemolisherBPB]

Y'know what I've always seen our purposes for living is? To die.
No matter what we do it will lead to death, nothing can avoid that. We just then make the choice of if we want that death to be a peaceful closer to everything or if it's something we feel empty after.

Our lives is are just something to dictate how we feel in the end.

In a more serious view I've always had a view that are life means nothing, our purposes does not come till the end and the moments where you can truly look back and decide if your happy with your choice's or if your leaving with something unfinished or unspoken.
Now there's the more survival based view of our purpose of living is to multiply and keep the species alive, there's nothing wrong with that.

Edited March 14, 2017 by DemolisherBPB

[FionordeQuester]

On 3/13/2017 at 3:47 AM, eclipse said:

Jesus can talk about Himself all he wants - He knows far more than us humans.  However, you're straying from what I originally had an issue with, which is your assumption that God is an objective truth, which also implies that whoever believes otherwise is wrong.  I think you'd take great offense if this were framed with another religion (or lack thereof) as humanity's objective truth.

What I'm wondering though is this; why is it upsetting that he be so blunt and direct, when others are being equally blunt and direct about their views?  I mean, I'm not saying he shouldn't try to be as gracious as possible, but, I still feel like there's a disparity here.  I don't see Esau of Isaac, Soul, Bandido, blah the Prussian, the Blind Idiot God, and etc. hemming and hawing about what they believe, for example.

 

EDIT: Was it the WAY JJ48 said it?  Like, he said the following...

 

Simply because some refuse to acknowledge God's intended purpose doesn't make it any less true, any more than someone earnestly believing that 2+2=5 makes math subjective. 

 

Was the italicized statement what made it different?  That he's saying others are wrong (as opposed to just implying it)?  Because otherwise, statements like "There is no objective purpose" (as opposed to statements like "I don't think there is an objective purpose") have the same implications, due to their lack of qualifiers.

Edited March 15, 2017 by FionordeQuester

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, FionordeQuester said:

What I'm wondering though is this; why is it upsetting that he be so blunt and direct, when others are being equally blunt and direct about their views?  I mean, I'm not saying he shouldn't try to be as gracious as possible, but, I still feel like there's a disparity here.  I don't see Esau of Isaac, Soul, Bandido, blah the Prussian, the Blind Idiot God, and etc. hemming and hawing about what they believe, for example.

 

EDIT: Was it the WAY JJ48 said it?  Like, he said the following...

 

Simply because some refuse to acknowledge God's intended purpose doesn't make it any less true, any more than someone earnestly believing that 2+2=5 makes math subjective. 

 

Was the italicized statement what made it different?  That he's saying others are wrong (as opposed to just implying it)?  Because otherwise, statements like "There is no objective purpose" (as opposed to statements like "I don't think there is an objective purpose") have the same implications, due to their lack of qualifiers.

There's a difference between agreeing because it's a good argument, and agreeing because it's a stance you agree with.  How honest is this statement?  BTW, I don't want to type anything in this vein again.

Simply because some refuse to acknowledge that there is no God doesn't make it any less true, any more than earnestly believing that 2+2=5 makes math subjective.

[FionordeQuester]

13 hours ago, eclipse said:

There's a difference between agreeing because it's a good argument, and agreeing because it's a stance you agree with.  How honest is this statement?  BTW, I don't want to type anything in this vein again.

I'm not sure I understand the question.  I agree with God existing, but I don't think that's relevant to what I'm trying to say; that it seems as though he's being called out for doing pretty much the exact same thing that other posters have done.  I don't believe my agreeing with his stance on God is relevant to the validity of my point.  

 

EDIT: I mean, should he maybe have provided more objective reasoning to why he believed what he believed?  Sure; but I could say the same for other folks.  That's what I'm pointing out.

Edited March 15, 2017 by FionordeQuester

[Original Alear]

Spin up the conflicting purposes of individual humans, if we can construct those, and add in the purpose of other beings, objects, and so on into the mix. Biology's decision to define a species by its survival doesn't seem like it's far off from the truth. I think the mistake is to think that fulfilling that purpose is perfectly proportioned into the purpose of each individual person, assuming each person does have a purpose they must/should fulfill.

The purpose of a population of humans would hopefully be found by people honestly articulating their own personal desires. Personally I like to think I don't always articulate my every desire, because I don't want people 1: objecting to it too much or 2: feeling like they should bend to suit it too much.

My purpose is to get what I want, which is sometimes merely the idea that I got someone else what they wanted (because, after all, that helps supplement the argument for me getting what I want - maybe), and I like the idea of doing so without impacting the wide swathe of people I interact with.

Even though we are all spinning up the kinds of comments that have been repeated 1000 times before, there might be some fun in it if it's refreshing to see them articulated from profiles of SF users we think of from time to time.

Except there's no objective way to prove that a belief in God is correct.  That's why I think it's subjective.

Find anything that can be proved objectively, then define that as god. Easy. Cogito Ergo Sum, or maybe just "Sum" ("Existence"). I seem to remember that as the...brilliance...of very foundational arguments of folks like Spinoza and Descartes. Also, I suspect everyone can agree that considering the level of change we perceive as occurring, change probably does really exist, even if we don't really have grasp of that change.

I'm pretty sure you're christian so I suspect whether you believe in god or have faith in him/her/it, you have a slightly more definitive idea than that.

The following is responding to some quotes in Eclipse's post, which I think was probably still fine and good:

Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.

I would quarrel with this in modern times as a reasonable way of treating others, and I think not foolishly - how frequently can a person obey warnings regarding divisiveness from another individual and track that person as having warned them twice? Further, how often will we hear warnings of divisiveness directed towards divisive action while our own thoughts were divisive, even if our actions were welcoming or neutral? I'm impressed if people can heed these warnings on a personal level - and I pity both those who live in a world where this order is followed literally, and even those who try and follow it on a more general level (listen to anyone who warns you that you're being divisive), even if I can reasonably honor them for carrying it out properly. If a commandment from Jesus was wise and capable of being obeyed to its letter at the time it was given, then maybe the old times were not always so bad as they seemed (I somewhat doubt this).

Pity is a pretty inevitable emotion, I think.

possible reincarnation

Karma ain't so bad.

I like to think of trying to give back as follows: I would want the world to help me if I needed help, and if someone is helped, they will believe it is worth helping. It's good that doing something good may benefit you.

I'm not sure reincarnation and karma are much as far as purposes go, but in terms of ways of thinking about how your life affects others, they seem to be good instruments. (no?)

any more than earnestly believing that 2+2=5 makes math subjective.

So I'm going to have.....fun.....here.....

Math appears to be an actual language used to express both abstract truths and relations. There seems to be the ability to express facts, indisputable propositions, etc. However, if humans actually believed that 2+2=5 ; if humans largely constructed a mathematical language where

think of the line below as an actual illustration of objects, and discount the worth of the comma:

X X , X X = X X X X X

then math really would be subjective, as far as humans understood it.

My guess is that there are enough mathematicians that 1: if we have any such truly illogical calculations, theorems or whatever which we uphold as expressing ideal truths, they are not on a level of nonsense as 2+2=5 (where 2 and 2 each represent 2 groups of 2 individual objects and 5 represents 5 individual objects), 2: the flaws in the ideas exist because of meanings humans lay onto them, 3: I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them have to do with infinity or zero.

I'm just trying to point out the gap between ideal truths and the symbols and characters we use to express them. Someone who adds 745 and 334 and gets 1078 is still using math. Math is something that gets performed in the heads of humans, and the heads of humans seem capable of producing error when they try and apply rules which are intended to eliminate error even at the elimination of direct relation to a real world situation (because if it's in our heads it's in the world, dammit!). I think math could be better than Jesus, though, at least these days.

[Life]

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 11:11 AM, DemolisherBPB said:

Y'know what I've always seen our purposes for living is? To die.
No matter what we do it will lead to death, nothing can avoid that. We just then make the choice of if we want that death to be a peaceful closer to everything or if it's something we feel empty after.

Our lives is are just something to dictate how we feel in the end.

In a more serious view I've always had a view that are life means nothing, our purposes does not come till the end and the moments where you can truly look back and decide if your happy with your choice's or if your leaving with something unfinished or unspoken.
Now there's the more survival based view of our purpose of living is to multiply and keep the species alive, there's nothing wrong with that.

So you're a nihilist. Nothing that you do matters as opposed to everything that you do matters. Guess which idea is more terrifying.

I don't see God as God as written in the Torah or Bible or Quran (or what have you). In fact, I really think we have the God idea all wrong even though God exists as a meta-truth.

Imagine God as a low resolution picture of what the highest ideal is. Why is God in low resolution? Because that's the best way that we could characterize those higher ideals that we couldn't really put a finger on.

I mean, let's take a very simple premise. In Genesis, God creates the Garden of Eden. A walled garden in effect. We could say that the garden is representative of nature while the walls are representative of culture (which forms walls against nature). And of course, both of these have positive and negative elements to them. But even though God is apparently all-powerful and all-knowing, there's a snake in the garden.

Why a snake? And how can God create a perfect paradise that clearly isn't perfect due to the snake existing?

One of the general arguments is that "God wanted to test human beings" but that assumes that God is really a bit of a sociopath and literally sees all humans as playthings. Sure, that's a valid theory to go down but since we know that these stories have the mark of man on them, let's assume that God isn't a sociopath.

So God creates the Garden of Eden and there's a snake inside of it. I've already alluded to the idea that the walls represent culture which in turn has two aspects to it: Order (positive element) and Tyranny (negative element). And the same is with the garden itself: Nature (positive element) and Chaos (negative element). So what does the snake represent?

Well, the snake tricks Adam and Eve into eating from the tree of knowledge. The snake is, in effect, malevolent because it is telling Adam and Eve to do something that is both dangerous and contrary to what this higher power wants them to do. We see this idea all the time in popular culture in the typical hero/adversary archetype: Harry Potter vs. Voldemort (who can both talk to snakes, by the way) really springs to mind. In fact, the best example of this would be in the second book where Harry goes underneath Hogwarts to fight the basilisk in order to save Ginny Weasley. Change the names and you have The Hobbit (Bilbo vs. Smaug) or St. George and The Dragon or Sleeping Beauty. The fundamental story is always the same. And dragons are essentially snakes with wings and legs.

One thing that's really interesting about Harry Potter and Bilbo Baggins is that they're not perfectly pure characters. Harry's a bit of a rulebreaker while Bilbo is a thief. There is some level of malevolence inside of them but they know how to embrace it rather than be swallowed whole by it.

Anyway, once Adam and Eve eat the apple, they realize that they're naked. Why? Well maybe the influence from the malevolence opened their eyes? We know that's the answer because it literally says "and their eyes were opened". But why are their eyes now open? What if they suddenly realized that malevolence exists and they're not safe if they can't pay attention to it? Remember, they didn't know what the punishment for eating the apple was and it could have killed them. Similar to the basilisk vs. Harry. It bites Harry and Harry almost dies. That is until he is revived by Fawkes (the phoenix). It seems to me that the revitalization is very similar to the idea of "opening your eyes". It's that revelation that not everything is as it seems and that the dragon (or snake) can kill you if you don't pay attention.

So where does God fit in here? Well, if God is a low resolution depiction of a higher ideal, maybe that ideal is the ability to pay attention without having to almost die to the snake? That if we could just pay attention, we would be on top of the dominance hierarchy and not let malevolence get to the point where it can kill us. And since we are the humans in the story and not the ideal, maybe that malevolence doesn't take the physical form of a snake but exists as a snake in our own hearts.


That's my two cents. And by the way, the Jesus story fits very well into this idea along with other stories like the Egyptian myth of sovereignty (which is basically the Lion King) and the old Mesopotamian story of creation. Each story constantly alludes to eyes and sight (Horus, Marduk, Jesus).

Edited April 14, 2017 by Comrade

[DemolisherBPB]

On 14/04/2017 at 2:48 AM, Comrade said:

So you're a nihilist. Nothing that you do matters as opposed to everything that you do matters. Guess which idea is more terrifying.

I don't see God as God as written in the Torah or Bible or Quran (or what have you). In fact, I really think we have the God idea all wrong even though God exists as a meta-truth.

Imagine God as a low resolution picture of what the highest ideal is. Why is God in low resolution? Because that's the best way that we could characterize those higher ideals that we couldn't really put a finger on.

I mean, let's take a very simple premise. In Mega Drive...

 I'm not going to stop you and your ideas, but It reads like what the Jehovahs tell me when they come to the door, and they can't tell me what planets day god used since they didn't exist when he was making planets. I'll continue with we are all just here by random chance and exist to exist.

I mean the edit I made to the quote should prove my life really. I'll live my nihilism and enjoy what I can by not thinking about it!
That's the real answer to life, not to think about it, let it blissfully pass you by, enjoy what your doing without worrying about other opinions.

[Original Alear]

Quote

So you're a nihilist. Nothing that you do matters as opposed to everything that you do matters. Guess which idea is more terrifying.

Both of these are potentially...scary? Terrifying? I honestly think it is a guess either way regarding which guess is scarier.

EDIT: Nihilism is more personally scary, I think. I think when you admit your own irrelevance, you admit your ability to change your situation. Is lack of control scarier than control? Having control is scary if you don't know how to control effectively.

There's a blend of nihilism and existentialism (I believe, as you phrased it) - believing you had/have control and you don't know what you were given control for or why. What you do matters - but you have no very good ability to know the link between what you do and how it will matter (a loss of something like common sense, or a trust for the feeling in your gut, things like that). If you look around you, there's a mass of different signals informing you of the results of your actions or of actions like yours performed by other people. Yet those results are just little fragments in a chain of events, and you don't really know the details of the actions that caused those results.

Existentialism reflects what is, but nihilism reflects, likely, my ability to follow it.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Help

[Life]

On 4/16/2017 at 11:08 PM, DemolisherBPB said:

 I'm not going to stop you and your ideas, but It reads like what the Jehovahs tell me when they come to the door, and they can't tell me what planets day god used since they didn't exist when he was making planets. I'll continue with we are all just here by random chance and exist to exist.

I mean the edit I made to the quote should prove my life really. I'll live my nihilism and enjoy what I can by not thinking about it!
That's the real answer to life, not to think about it, let it blissfully pass you by, enjoy what your doing without worrying about other opinions.

One question.

 

If we're all here by random chance, then how do you explain The Big Bang theory? Simple physics says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That would also mean that every reaction would need an action before it?

 

I don't have an answer to that question, by the way. This isn't a "gotcha" moment.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

There is no known purpose for the human species that is recognized as fact. You come into life, grow under the effects of circumstance, obstacles, society and the decisions you make. Then you pretty much just go on to live life as you see fit and with what you can get out of it, you make your own purpose.

Who knows, if you're privileged enough to meet the "qualifications" needed to be president in the distant future and little has been done to change said qualifications, you could be president of the US.

[Skynstein]

Our purpose as species is the purpose of any species: to proliferate as much as we can.

Unfortunately for the planet, we have reached a point where we're becoming too much for it. :D