4 ms·

So, you are saying that because 'life is sufficiently good', we have no problems, and thus, no purpose. I would agree with what you are saying, assuming the abs

by brianto2010 17y ago

So, you are saying that because 'life is sufficiently good', we have no problems, and thus, no purpose. I would agree with what you are saying, assuming the absence of one major variable: interaction with the minds and hearts around us. My belief is that we do not have purpose a priori, and that life is void, but through living - interacting with others, expressing emotions, and seeing a larger scope of the world around us - we can create our own purpose. We are curious by nature; we tinker, play, and slave away at discovering connections between the entitites around us. As we grow, this fundamental desire does not wane; it grows. It grows as we grow. One day, we will find one such connection that will bring us joy, happiness. This is our true calling. It is because of this true calling that we find our purpose. Our true calling is our purpose. Of course, not everyone can find it... So, let me try a second argument: Why are we happy when a spouse gives birth? Why are we worried if a dear friend or companion is ill? Why do we shed tears at a loved one's wake? We feel because we developed a connection with the people around us. That is our purpose. If we cannot find a purpose within ourselves (above argument), we find purpose in preserving the life and happiness of the ones most dear to us (this argument). If a person does not fall into either category, then that person truly doesn't have a purpose. <sarcasm>That is what depression and absurdism/nihilism is for.</sarcasm> Also, I agree that people do have a intrinsic avarice. :-)

astine 17y ago
"My belief is that we do not have purpose a priori, and that life is void," You mean intrinsically, maybe before knowledge. A priori doesn't make sense in this context. "Why are we happy when a spouse gives birth? Why are we worried if a dear friend or companion is ill? Why do we shed tears at a loved one's wake? We feel because we developed a connection with the people around us. That is our purpose. If we cannot find a purpose within ourselves (above argument), we find purpose in preserving the life and happiness of the ones most dear to us (this argument)." Why are we happy when an enemy is killed? Why are we worried if a dear follows us in the dark? Why do we shed tears at a foe's triumph? We feel because we developed a hatred toward the people around us. That is our purpose. If we cannot find a purpose within ourselves (above argument), we find purpose in hating those whom we most hate (this argument).
- brianto2010 17y ago
  Regarding the 'a priori' thing, you're right. Oops. I was trying to sound cool. Your version of the argument works too, though pessimistic. Some people live their lives to hate other people.

astine 17y ago

"My belief is that we do not have purpose a priori, and that life is void," You mean intrinsically, maybe before knowledge. A priori doesn't make sense in this context. "Why are we happy when a spouse gives birth? Why are we worried if a dear friend or companion is ill? Why do we shed tears at a loved one's wake? We feel because we developed a connection with the people around us. That is our purpose. If we cannot find a purpose within ourselves (above argument), we find purpose in preserving the life and happiness of the ones most dear to us (this argument)." Why are we happy when an enemy is killed? Why are we worried if a dear follows us in the dark? Why do we shed tears at a foe's triumph? We feel because we developed a hatred toward the people around us. That is our purpose. If we cannot find a purpose within ourselves (above argument), we find purpose in hating those whom we most hate (this argument).

brianto2010 17y ago
Regarding the 'a priori' thing, you're right. Oops. I was trying to sound cool. Your version of the argument works too, though pessimistic. Some people live their lives to hate other people.