4 ms·

>One can find much more objective meaning to existence without outsorcing it to some imaginable friend. Care to elaborate on this? I'm an atheist myself and I'

>One can find much more objective meaning to existence without outsorcing it to some imaginable friend. Care to elaborate on this? I'm an atheist myself and I've been struggling with this a lot.

Retric 10y ago
Aesthetics is one possibility. When someone straitens a picture frame they don't need that to last past the heat death of the universe for it to be worth it. Expanding this to say a painting or poem which also has a finite lifespan and you can even learn to appreciate a Mandala. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala Keep going in that direction and a life well lived is it's own reward. And by well lived I mean occasional cliff diving not devoting oneself to charitable giving. There is a lot of pressure for 'success' but I suspect many people are happier with a career in dog grooming than they would be as CEO of IBM. High status can be fun, or endless drudgery.
- virmundi 10y ago
  The issue is defining what it is to be "well lived". With out a sky daddy, you're pretty much unable to declare anything good or bad. Some men want to watch the world burn. Tell me why that is wrong? You will say that human life has value. I will ask, honestly, why? From a purely reductionist perspective it doesn't. It's all just atoms. I kill cockroaches without a negative thought. There is no reason to not have the same view of people in a purely materialistic worldview. Again, if one's aesthetics is gruesome, but enjoyable to that person, you cannot tell them they are wrong. You cannot interfere with them from an ethics perspective. They want to kill, steal and rape, you have to let them. Otherwise you're forcing an external model that you deem good onto them. We've already established that there is no actual good model. The result is that we must accept hypocrisy. We must all realize that might makes right. The most powerful, flawed group of people are correct. They are the law.
  - Retric 10y ago
    You are presupposing a suicide bomber somehow had a bad life. I am rejecting that assumption and saying a swat team and the person their shooting could both have lived a great life. Following the rules of society results in lower friction, and is generally a net positive trade off. That does not mean it's always the correct path. After-all George Washington could easily have been shot as a traitor. It may seem the strange for a hangman to respect the hanged, but morality and rules need not be 1:1. PS: This also set's up an interesting freedom duality where someone is free to impose rules and others are free to break them. With the right set of rules you end up with a Darwinian system with huge pressures to enjoy conforming. And a safety valve of people rebelling if the rules are unacceptable. Oddly enough this actually maps fairly well to the real world.
    - virmundi 10y ago
      No, I make no assumption about the the suicide bomber. I'm say he didn't do anything bad. He could kill thousands. Not bad. The reason is that "bad" is meaningless. There is no such thing as right or wrong in a materialistic view. Aesthetics doesn't get you there. If the bomber things that the death of thousands looks good, it is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
      - Retric 10y ago
        You are trying to add morality where there is zero need for it. "Tell me why that is wrong? ... You cannot interfere with them" My point was you don't need to say what someone did was "bad" to stop them. As long as more people prefer an ordered world then the dissidents can be dealt with. If majority rule says giving to the homeless is a capital offense then so be it. Physics and thus biology are going to impose a few rules. Further, completion kicks in at the social level. But, that does not mean Anarchy is "bad" just out competed. Thus, while morality does not impose any rules collective groups of people do. Not because might makes right, but might exists and there is no right. PS: At the extreme at one point I realized I was being paid in part to help maintain nuclear weapons. Not because I believed in them instead I liked money and other people want them.
Sinaf 10y ago
Philosophy has many different shades and colors (Philosophy of language, science, mathematics), and there is also a "branch" asking questions related to the meaning of life. I can't tell you where you could/should start, because I feel like I would already influence you too much by taking some sort of choice away from you. I will link a few essays I could find that are available for free and are not too long. I'm already influencing you a little bit by making this selection, but I urge you to do your own research: If you like one of the stories, try to find out who was influenced by whom (e.g. Kafka doesn't directly address meaning but influenced Camus; Nietzsche was influenced by Schopenhauer), and consider reading things challenging the author. [1] The Last Question - Isaac Asimov (http://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf http://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf) [2] Metamorphosis - Franz Kafka (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5200 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5200) [3] A Clean, Well-Lighted Place - Ernest Hemingway (http://www.url-der.org/a_clean_well_lighted_place.pdf http://www.url-der.org/a_clean_well_lighted_place.pdf) [4] On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense - Friedrich Nietzsche (http://www.jpcatholic.com/NCUpdf/Nietzsche.pdf http://www.jpcatholic.com/NCUpdf/Nietzsche.pdf) I've often see people link the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so I'm gonna do it as well: http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html While I'm writing this gutenberg.org seems to have some problems, but just search for "Metamorphosis Kafka", and you should find plenty of other sources.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  Interesting that you seem to be like me in wanting people to find their own path instead of influencing them in one direction too much. My meta is that this gives them more ownership over their chosen path, from which they'll potentially derive more pleasure and more meaning :) Trying hard to have people make up their own mind can be hard for dating, though.

>One can find much more objective meaning to existence without outsorcing it to some imaginable friend. Care to elaborate on this? I'm an atheist myself and I've been struggling with this a lot.

Retric 10y ago

Aesthetics is one possibility. When someone straitens a picture frame they don't need that to last past the heat death of the universe for it to be worth it. Expanding this to say a painting or poem which also has a finite lifespan and you can even learn to appreciate a Mandala. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala Keep going in that direction and a life well lived is it's own reward. And by well lived I mean occasional cliff diving not devoting oneself to charitable giving. There is a lot of pressure for 'success' but I suspect many people are happier with a career in dog grooming than they would be as CEO of IBM. High status can be fun, or endless drudgery.

virmundi 10y ago
The issue is defining what it is to be "well lived". With out a sky daddy, you're pretty much unable to declare anything good or bad. Some men want to watch the world burn. Tell me why that is wrong? You will say that human life has value. I will ask, honestly, why? From a purely reductionist perspective it doesn't. It's all just atoms. I kill cockroaches without a negative thought. There is no reason to not have the same view of people in a purely materialistic worldview. Again, if one's aesthetics is gruesome, but enjoyable to that person, you cannot tell them they are wrong. You cannot interfere with them from an ethics perspective. They want to kill, steal and rape, you have to let them. Otherwise you're forcing an external model that you deem good onto them. We've already established that there is no actual good model. The result is that we must accept hypocrisy. We must all realize that might makes right. The most powerful, flawed group of people are correct. They are the law.
- Retric 10y ago
  You are presupposing a suicide bomber somehow had a bad life. I am rejecting that assumption and saying a swat team and the person their shooting could both have lived a great life. Following the rules of society results in lower friction, and is generally a net positive trade off. That does not mean it's always the correct path. After-all George Washington could easily have been shot as a traitor. It may seem the strange for a hangman to respect the hanged, but morality and rules need not be 1:1. PS: This also set's up an interesting freedom duality where someone is free to impose rules and others are free to break them. With the right set of rules you end up with a Darwinian system with huge pressures to enjoy conforming. And a safety valve of people rebelling if the rules are unacceptable. Oddly enough this actually maps fairly well to the real world.
  - virmundi 10y ago
    No, I make no assumption about the the suicide bomber. I'm say he didn't do anything bad. He could kill thousands. Not bad. The reason is that "bad" is meaningless. There is no such thing as right or wrong in a materialistic view. Aesthetics doesn't get you there. If the bomber things that the death of thousands looks good, it is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
    - Retric 10y ago
      You are trying to add morality where there is zero need for it. "Tell me why that is wrong? ... You cannot interfere with them" My point was you don't need to say what someone did was "bad" to stop them. As long as more people prefer an ordered world then the dissidents can be dealt with. If majority rule says giving to the homeless is a capital offense then so be it. Physics and thus biology are going to impose a few rules. Further, completion kicks in at the social level. But, that does not mean Anarchy is "bad" just out competed. Thus, while morality does not impose any rules collective groups of people do. Not because might makes right, but might exists and there is no right. PS: At the extreme at one point I realized I was being paid in part to help maintain nuclear weapons. Not because I believed in them instead I liked money and other people want them.

Sinaf 10y ago

Philosophy has many different shades and colors (Philosophy of language, science, mathematics), and there is also a "branch" asking questions related to the meaning of life. I can't tell you where you could/should start, because I feel like I would already influence you too much by taking some sort of choice away from you. I will link a few essays I could find that are available for free and are not too long. I'm already influencing you a little bit by making this selection, but I urge you to do your own research: If you like one of the stories, try to find out who was influenced by whom (e.g. Kafka doesn't directly address meaning but influenced Camus; Nietzsche was influenced by Schopenhauer), and consider reading things challenging the author. [1] The Last Question - Isaac Asimov (http://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf http://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf) [2] Metamorphosis - Franz Kafka (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5200 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5200) [3] A Clean, Well-Lighted Place - Ernest Hemingway (http://www.url-der.org/a_clean_well_lighted_place.pdf http://www.url-der.org/a_clean_well_lighted_place.pdf) [4] On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense - Friedrich Nietzsche (http://www.jpcatholic.com/NCUpdf/Nietzsche.pdf http://www.jpcatholic.com/NCUpdf/Nietzsche.pdf) I've often see people link the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so I'm gonna do it as well: http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html While I'm writing this gutenberg.org seems to have some problems, but just search for "Metamorphosis Kafka", and you should find plenty of other sources.

seanp2k2 10y ago
Interesting that you seem to be like me in wanting people to find their own path instead of influencing them in one direction too much. My meta is that this gives them more ownership over their chosen path, from which they'll potentially derive more pleasure and more meaning :) Trying hard to have people make up their own mind can be hard for dating, though.