# What do you think is your purpose in life?



## PhilosophyMan

Hello. I'm new here but I realy want to ask you...
We've all gone through this phase in life, sometimes more often than others. But haven't you ever asked yourself, "Why am I on this earth"? What am I here for? Exactly just what is your purpose in life?
P.S. Sorry If wrong section!


----------



## Elgarian

PhilosophyMan said:


> But haven't you ever asked yourself, "Why am I on this earth"? What am I here for? Exactly just what is your purpose in life?


Not sure whether I'm falling into a trap, here, but I'll take the question at face value.

Suppose I'm engaged in an activity that usually I find greatly enriching - for example, listening to a favourite piece of music, or looking at a great painting. Now suppose that while engaged in that activity, I stop and ask myself, "Am I enjoying this?" The more persistently I ask the question, the more uncertainty I experience about whether I really _am_ enjoying it, and pretty soon I'll have to admit that I'm not actually enjoying it at all. Maybe I was before, but surely I'm not any longer, now that I'm asking the question.

The reason for this is that when I stop to ask the question, I'm no longer attending to the music or the painting. Instead, I'm attending to _me_ - my feelings, my physical state, etc. Paradoxically, then, the only way I can know if I'm enjoying the music or the painting is to be so deeply engrossed with it that it wouldn't occur to me to ask whether I'm enjoying it.

So with the purpose of life. If I find myself worrying about the purpose of my life, I can be sure that either I don't know it, or that if I did think I knew it, I've now lost it. So, my purpose in life is to be so fully engaged with the process of living that it would seem absurd to stop and ask what my purpose is.


----------



## Elaryad

PhilosophyMan said:


> Hello. I'm new here but I realy want to ask you...
> We've all gone through this phase in life, sometimes more often than others. But haven't you ever asked yourself, "Why am I on this earth"? What am I here for? Exactly just what is your purpose in life?
> P.S. Sorry If wrong section!


To take care of myself and then to die.


----------



## Kuhlau

An excellent answer, Elgarian.

For me, it runs a little deeper. I consider all life to be one indivisible whole. All is one. So to ask what is the purpose of _my_ life is irrelevant. The question for me must be, 'What is the purpose of Life?'

On that, I must be necessarily silent.

FK


----------



## Elaryad

*Elgarian*, when Heidegger was teaching his students about boredom, he was actually very thrilled. He was not affected by the status he was talking about. Because if he had been affected at the moment, he would be so bored that he wouldn't say a word. So yes, he needed some 'displacement' from being bored, to think about and study about it. But we cannot set ourselves apart from Life, and that's why we have those intricate intellectual exercises practiced by existencial philosophy. But to be engaged in the process of living is also to question it, and that's a very intense process, specially because we can't stop and ask, but because we have to do it in 'movement' toward the next couple of seconds... while living .


----------



## Weston

We have lots of purposes, not just one. Mine are clear to me and fairly simple.

I am not being flippant when I say my purpose is to be a receptacle for Beethoven's music. The only way that music lives is when someone is hearing it, even if it's only in their mind's ear. I feel Beethoven's music MUST live, so someone has to hear it, and that may as well be me. I can be the receptacle for other music too fortunately, and so can anyone else.

That is not my only purpose in life, but it's a big one. Another purpose is to love and be loved.

On a more cosmic scale, what if we as individuals are like the neurons of a higher being? In that case, it is my sacred duty to feel as little pain, guilt, or other unpleasantness as possible, and not to cause others any of these negative feelings either.

Another important purpose is to create. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then creativity is the sincerest form of worship.

Tomorrow may bring new purposes.


----------



## Elgarian

Elaryad said:


> But we cannot set ourselves apart from Life, and that's why we have those intricate intellectual exercises practiced by existencial philosophy. But to be engaged in the process of living is also to question it, and that's a very intense process, specially because we can't stop and ask, but because we have to do it in 'movement' toward the next couple of seconds... while living .


Yes, but the questioner asked not what is *the* purpose of life (which I wouldn't presume to try to answer, even if I thought it _could_ be answered on behalf of someone else); he asked what is *my *purpose in life. I've spent a lot of time over the years engaged in those intellectual exercises you mention (more than perhaps is sensible), and I agree with you that doing so is part of the living process. But I reached a stage (I don't say that it's permanent), where the intellectual questioning ceased to be fruitful. If one goes on and on asking 'what is the purpose of life?' (and not finding an adequate answer), sooner or later one will start asking 'what is the purpose of asking this question?' - and that's the beginning of an absurd endless regression.

The parallel with what I'd already observed about my enjoyment of art was inescapable. To enjoy art fully, what's required is a kind of existential plunge. There may be a whole battery of intellectual analysis beforehand, but the danger is to mistake that for the real thing. I may have researched the detailed history of how Cezanne came to paint one of his Mont St Victoire landscapes, how it relates to Impressionism, and how it prefigures Cubism - these are all good questions to ask; but to really understand, to _know_ the picture, I have to stop the intellectualising and dive in. The questions prepare me for the act of engagement, but once the engagement begins, they're a distraction. At the moments when I'm really understanding the art, I'm no longer asking the questions, regardless of how useful they were in getting me to that point. To understand the purpose of the art, I have, finally, and paradoxically, to stop asking what its purpose is.

As with art (at least, as I find it), so with life; and that's why I answered the question the way I did.


----------



## David C Coleman

I think my own purpose in life is to work as hard and as honestly as I can and help people who are in a less fortunate position than I am.


I think to really know what your purpose is in life is determined by four main things.

A) Good parenting/upbringing
B) Good schooling/education
C) Enough money to be able to carry out your dreams.
D) Good friendships

I think that these factors shape the person you are and the purpose of your life, no-matter what career or profession you pursue.

If you are lacking one or more of these, then you are stunted in your development as a person, and you are frustrated.

Unfortuantely, I would say that I have A,B and D but have lacked C. So I've had to do the best I can....


----------



## marval

I have never spent a long time analizing my purpose in life. I think it is just to be the best I can, not neccessarily in what I do but in the kind of person I can be. If I can lie on my deathbed and say I had no enemies, and people got on with me then I shall be reasonably happy.

Life might be more complicated than that, but it will do for me.


Margaret


----------



## Mr. Terrible

Well it sounds shallow but I have seen most of my family die young, so...
My purpose is to enjoy the time I have on this planet.
Share a few laughs, make some music.
Love my family.
Help people as and where I can.
Have lots and lots of FUN.
and die owing the Taxman a fortune.

...and point out delicious typing slips like marval`s...
I have a friend called tom Macanally who gets in a similar pickle from time to time.

(sorry!)


----------



## marval

Sorry for my typing slips Mr. Terrible, thank you for pointing them out. I seem to have typing dyslexia at the moment, must type a bit slower.


Margaret


----------



## Guest

PhilosophyMan said:


> "Why am I on this earth"? What am I here for? Exactly just what is your purpose in life?
> QUOTE]
> 
> *Ha, *I have often asked myself the same question just a couple of hours ago after a very bad round of Golf I muttered "what the hell am I wasting my time for?"
> 
> The main purpose of life is the well known one: *Survival and reproduce*.
> Can I ask you* PhilMan *does there have to be a purpose to life??


----------



## Guest

marval said:


> If I can lie on my deathbed and say I had no enemies, and people got on with me then I shall be reasonably happy. Margaret


How many people do you want to get on your bed with you Marg


----------



## PhilosophyMan

I think my new life phase has become. Thanks God.


----------



## Alnitak

Why am I on this earth?

If I really exist, I'd answer you that I'm on this earth because I was born many years ago of human parents, and because I don’t hold my breath.

On the contrary, I may have some doubt about my existence, even if I think ("Cogito, ergo sum” )- my purpose can be not to realise that I do not exist. It reminds me, indeed, this story : One day about sunset, Zhuangzi dozed off and dreamed that he turned into a butterfly. He flapped his wings and sure enough he was a butterfly…What a joyfull feeling as he fluttered about, he completely forgot that he was Zhuangzi. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuangzi - But he didn't know if he was Zhuangzi who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi.

So, if my purpose is: going on dreaming, Please do not awake me!


----------



## marval

Hi Andante

Oops, I should have put that better, but I am sure you know what I meant.

How many on my deathbed? Just me.

Margaret


----------



## Kuhlau

Alnitak said:


> Why am I on this earth?
> 
> If I really exist, I'd answer you that I'm on this earth because I was born many years ago of human parents, and because I don't hold my breath.
> 
> On the contrary, I may have some doubt about my existence, even if I think ("Cogito, ergo sum" )- my purpose can be not to realise that I do not exist. It reminds me, indeed, this story : One day about sunset, Zhuangzi dozed off and dreamed that he turned into a butterfly. He flapped his wings and sure enough he was a butterfly…What a joyfull feeling as he fluttered about, he completely forgot that he was Zhuangzi. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuangzi - But he didn't know if he was Zhuangzi who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi.
> 
> So, if my purpose is: going on dreaming, Please do not awake me!


This reminds me of something Swami Vivekananda once said: 'Life is an incongruous dream.' (Or words to that effect.)

FK


----------



## Guest

marval said:


> Hi Andante
> 
> Oops, I should have put that better, but I am sure you know what I meant.
> 
> How many on my deathbed? Just me.
> 
> Margaret


Yeh, I realised that, just pulling you leg


----------



## marval

Consider my leg well and truly pulled.


Margaret


----------



## Alnitak

Kuhlau said:


> This reminds me of something Swami Vivekananda once said: 'Life is an incongruous dream.' (Or words to that effect.)
> 
> FK


Indeed. And said, furthermore:

"As body, mind, or soul, you are a dream; you really are Being, Consciousness, Bliss (satchidananda). You are the God of this universe."

"Blows are what awaken us and help to break the dream. They show us the insufficiency of this world and make us long to escape, to have freedom."

"Both the forces of good and evil will keep the universe alive for us, until we awake from our dreams and give up this building of mud pies."


----------



## Isola

My purpose in life is to experience.


----------



## Mr. Terrible

marval said:


> Sorry for my typing slips Mr. Terrible, thank you for pointing them out. I seem to have typing dyslexia at the moment, must type a bit slower.
> 
> Margaret


You`re apologising to ME???

That is truly funny - I must be absolutely the worst typist in the world.
Since osteo arthritis became my companion I type so badly I have given up on editing everything but the really illegible stuff.

Just tickled by such a dfelightful typo.

ivan

On re-reading the thread it seemws we are not alone.

My 90 year old Irish father in law reckons the more deaf he gets the funnier life becomes - apparently some of the things he mis-hears are priceless.

So there is hope for us yet.


----------



## marval

No, we are not alone. It is good to know that there is a funny side to going slightly deaf.
(Pardon, what did I say?)


Margaret


----------



## Yagan Kiely

To copulate, and rise offspring in the hope they will do the same.

If you want an idealogical and naive-romantic meaning of life, it is to enjoy like however way best suites you.


----------



## Kuhlau

Alnitak said:


> Indeed. And said, furthermore:
> 
> "As body, mind, or soul, you are a dream; you really are Being, Consciousness, Bliss (satchidananda). You are the God of this universe."
> 
> "Blows are what awaken us and help to break the dream. They show us the insufficiency of this world and make us long to escape, to have freedom."
> 
> "Both the forces of good and evil will keep the universe alive for us, until we awake from our dreams and give up this building of mud pies."


It's nice to finally meet someone else who's heard of Vivekananda. 

Having read a good deal of esoteric, religious, spiritual and metaphysical literature over the years, I have to say that I can see the sense in the words you've quoted. Even in Christian texts, we men and women are referred to as 'pilgrims'. Perhaps we really _are_ a long way from our true home. Perhaps we _are_ dreaming this seemingly real reality. Perhaps suffering really _is_ the way to awaken us. I have no definite answers, but all such ideas seem to make good sense once you begin to go beyond life's surface.

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> I have no definite answers, but all such ideas seem to make good sense once you begin to go beyond life's surface.


I like the honest openness of that approach. For myself, I'd rephrase it 'all such ideas seem to _offer interesting possibilities_ once you begin to go beyond life's surface' (I'm not sure how much _sense_ I can make of it all, really). But the important thing, I think, is to recognise how pitifully little we know, despite the fact that we seem to know so much.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian said:


> But the important thing, I think, is to recognise how pitifully little we know, despite the fact that we seem to know so much.


If only those who denounce any form of spirituality in favour of material science alone would be man enough to admit this.

FK


----------



## shsherm

Isola has the right idea. To see, to do, to experience, and to enjoy when possible. Music is only one area of interest that I savor.


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> If only those who denounce any form of spirituality in favour of material science alone would be man enough to admit this.


I don't think it's a matter of bravery or wilfulness (if that's what you mean); rather, it's a matter of brainwashing. Science has been so hugely successful in predicting the behaviour of the material world, that there's a powerful incentive to forget that it does so only by eliminating from consideration all the types of questions (vital and essential questions, many of them) that it can't answer. I'm not knocking science in the slightest (I'm a scientist myself); just the kind of flawed philosophy that restricts its source material to the statements of science, but then claims universality in its findings.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian, you are my favourite kind (the best kind?) of scientist: an open-minded one.

FK


----------



## Guest

Kuhlau said:


> If only those who denounce any form of spirituality in favour of material science alone would be man enough to admit this.
> 
> FK


What is your definition of spirituality?



Elgarian said:


> Science has been so hugely successful in predicting the behaviour of the material world, that there's a powerful incentive to forget that it does so only by eliminating from consideration all the types of questions (vital and essential questions, many of them) that it can't answer.


 but it has tested all kinds of theories out side of the "material world" and none of them (to my knowledge) stands up to observations, so if proof is not available you are left with "Faith" or "belief" and we have been there.


> I'm not knocking science in the slightest (I'm a scientist myself); just the kind of flawed philosophy that restricts its source material to the statements of science, but then claims universality in its findings.


 isn't that what religion does but without the science


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> but it has tested all kinds of theories out side of the "material world" and none of them (to my knowledge) stands up to observations, so if proof is not available you are left with "Faith" or "belief" and we have been there.


My point is, Andante, that it hasn't tested anything at all outside 'the material world', because it has no means of doing so. Science (very sensibly) restricts the kinds of questions it asks to the kinds of questions it can answer, and those are, crudely speaking, restricted to those that apply to 'the material world'. Science is successful if it predicts physical outcomes well. A good scientific theory will be highly predictive: 'take this pill and your headache will go away"; "design your rocket like this and you will reach the moon".

But many of the questions human beings ask are not questions that science was ever designed to address, and a classic example is 'what is the purpose of my life?' Science knows nothing of purposes; it only deals with causes and effects, excluding at the outset certain factors that are of vital importance for human beings. You can't use a system which excludes 'purpose' from the factors in its experiments, and then expect that system to produce a valid explanation of purposes. As Whitehead put it, with startling clarity: "the final outlook of philosophic thought cannot be based on the exact statements which form the basis of special sciences. The exactness is a fake."

I'm not in any sense arguing _for_ 'faith' or 'belief' as you put it. I'm arguing for a rational acknowledgement of the philosophical limitations of scientific enquiry. It isn't capable of bearing the weight of philosophical dependence that many people put on it.

Bear in mind too that what you call 'proof' doesn't exist even within science. You can _disprove_ a theory, but you can never 'prove' one. The history of science is littered with discarded theories because that's the way science works - by testing their predictions against the real world and discarding them when the tests fail. As science progresses, we don't get closer and closer to some absolute discoverable 'truth'; we just get more successfully predictive theories that, in their turn, will eventually be discarded.



> isn't that what religion does but without the science


I wouldn't wish to argue a case either for or against 'religion' as such (and I've no interest at all in those never-ending 'science versus religion' debates), though I'd argue against any system that, like science, restricts its source material and then claims universality in its findings.


----------



## Kuhlau

Andante, without wishing to ignore your question or be in any way rude, may I please pass on answering for myself, and refer you instead to Elgarian's post above? It says pretty much everything I feel about science, and also expresses my wish not to be drawn into a cyclical discussion that pits science against religion ... or spirituality, if you prefer.

All I will say regarding my own position is that I have read certain texts, formed certain opinions and continue to reform those opinions as new ideas are presented and/or old ideas are found wanting. My definition of spirituality, therefore, is ever in flux - it would be useless to try to expound it here.

FK


----------



## Guest

Elgarian said:


> My point is, Andante, that it hasn't tested anything at all outside 'the material world', because it has no means of doing so.


OK accepted, we live in the material world so how could it be otherwise. Religion and so called Spirituality are based on faith, hope etc so are figments of the imagination as is pseudo science.



> But many of the questions human beings ask are not questions that science was ever designed to address, and a classic example is 'what is the purpose of my life?'


And as I asked in my first post #12 "does there have to be a purpose to life??"



Kuhlau said:


> Andante, without wishing to ignore your question or be in any way rude, may I please pass on answering for myself, and refer you instead to Elgarian's post above? It says pretty much everything I feel about science, and also expresses my wish not to be drawn into a cyclical discussion that pits science against religion ... or spirituality, if you prefer.FK


I respect your wishes however the very nature of the Ops question makes it inevitable that these questions will be raised and my question to you was to clarify Spiritualty


----------



## Kuhlau

And I respect your right to ask such questions, Andante. It's just that I feel unable to answer in a meaningful way that doesn't get clouded by the frames of reference commonly associated with 'pseudo-science'.

Were I a better communicator in these matters, I'd make a better advocate for the ideas presented therein - and possibly, I'd be better able to explain what I mean by 'spirituality'. But alas, I am not. So all I can say, in the simplest but wooliest of ways, is that spirituality refers to things of the spirit (a contradiction in itself, as the 'spirit' is claimed to be non-material, while 'things' - to me, at least - suggests stuff that's materially manifest).

FK


----------



## Guest

*Kuhlau * What I was trying to find out was does Spirituality refer to the Soul, another plane of existence, life after death, ghosts? Or is it the existence of another form of me existing at the same time that my material self exists, but that only some are aware of, please do not feel obliged to answer I am just explaining my thoughts, muddled as they are


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> OK accepted, we live in the material world so how could it be otherwise.


It depends on whether or not you think 'the material world' (whatever that means) is all there is. But that's a philosophical issue, and nothing to do with science as such. If you think that the kinds of questions that science asks (and tries to answer) are the only valid questions, then that's a personal philosophical choice, and you could call yourself a Logical Positivist. But science itself can't shed any light on whether that initial choice is correct or not. Once the choice is made, that kind of materialism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.



> Religion and so called Spirituality are based on faith, hope etc so are figments of the imagination as is pseudo science.


Religion doesn't have a monopoly on those things. Even the most hard-bitten scientist doesn't live a life scientifically (and I've known a lot of scientists, as well as being one myself). We fall in love, we trust our friends, we frequently make leaps of faith at important junctions in our lives, and we live in various states of hope or despair. Most of our actions in life are based on intuition, not scientific prediction (though admittedly being a physicist helps me sometimes when gadgets stop working.) All these things - love, faith, hope, admiration, trust, friendship etc - are the most important things in all our lives, yet science has nothing of value to say about them.



> And as I asked in my first post #12 "does there have to be a purpose to life??"


Not at all. It could be 'a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. But a lot of us seem to ask the question, and I think the mere fact that we do is interesting. The scientific universal myth is as full of drama as anything devised by the ancient Greeks. I mean, here's this universe that pops into existence 14 billion years ago for no reason that we can see. It goes through the whole purposeless rigmarole of making stars and galaxies; and the stars blast themselves to bits and scatter their fragments far and wide; and from the heavy elements they produce, hard, rocky planets form. And on at least one of these planets life develops, and countless creatures live their purposeless lives and die, and evolve, until eventually, at some arbitrary but soon-to-be-heroic stage of this mindless chaotic process, a group of creatures stand up in the middle of this purposeless universe, look around, and say 'what's all this about then?' Now I think that's weird. I'm not saying it means there is some kind of divine purpose - not at all - but by golly it makes me gasp a bit. It's a sobering thought that 14 billion years of the universe's evolution have brought you and me to this moment, having this conversation about whether our lives have purpose. No matter what way you look at it, _we're_ at the cutting edge of the universe. The whole game is to play for, and the idea that one particular, recently developed theory of knowledge - the scientific method - is being claimed to have a monopoly on truth seems a bit premature and unwise, in this context.


----------



## Kuhlau

My God, Elgarian. What a refreshingly open-minded (and engagingly eloquent) scientist you are. I'm enjoying your views - and largely agreeing with them - with every new post. 

Andante, I suppose the simplest way I can explain things given what I've read - and hopefully, understood - is that what we call 'material' is in fact concretised 'spirit'. That's actually too simplistic, but the point I'm trying to make is that it's said that spirit and matter are two ends of the same stick. This is why I referred to the idea of an indivisible whole in my initial post.

So, you may conclude that I am happy to be persuaded by the idea that everything is essentially spirit, but just in different vibrational states.

FK


----------



## Guest

Elgarian said:


> It depends on whether or not.................................... becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


I was referring to your comment that I quoted, and was asking how can we test any other way? For example we cannot test for anything in a dimension that we can not experience! So we either use science as we have it or, guess and speculate 


> Religion doesn't have a monopoly on those things. Even the ..............................................................................nothing of value to say about them.


Yes I realise all of those things, and would take issue with some but that would involve a lengthy discussion and simply be different points of view.


> Not at all. It could be 'a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. But a lot of us seem ...........................................................e scientific method - is being claimed to have a monopoly on truth seems a bit premature and unwise, in this context.


I think the point is that until understanding is reached man will be and always has been in awe of the "unknown" by that I mean:

When Man encounters something that he does not understand he can just accept it and carry on, he can attribute it to supernatural causes and be in awe of it, he can try to find answers, I belong to the latter group.


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> I was referring to your comment that I quoted, and was asking how can we test any other way? For example we cannot test for anything in a dimension that we can not experience! So we either use science as we have it or, guess and speculate


It sounds as though you've made your own philosophical decision, because you're implying that you think the scientific method is the only route to knowledge: hence your question 'how can we test any other way?' Indeed, for a logical positivist, there is no other route to knowledge because his philosophy excludes any others as its most basic premiss.

I'd say two things in response to that. First, I'd recommend reading a philosopher like Alfred North Whitehead, who demolishes logical positivism beyond all reclamation, in my view. Second, I'd say that almost all of my most valued knowledge has come _not_ through science (though I've had some wonderful moments in that respect), but through art, thinking, reading, and general experience of life. I think you're limiting the choices far too much when you say the only alternative to science is guesswork and speculation. I say again - we _do not_ live our lives scientifically; we make non-scientifically-based choices almost every moment of our waking lives. I love, trust, and have faith in my friends not because I've tested them scientifically, but for a dozen reasons, almost all intuitively arrived at, and none of which could be 'proved' by any known system of scientific testing. (Logical positivism isn't a philosophy anyone can actually live down to, I think.)



> Yes I realise all of those things, and would take issue with some but that would involve a lengthy discussion and simply be different points of view.


I'm not sure what you mean here about the points of view. That people (even scientists) don't live their lives according to the scientific method isn't a point of view - it's a readily observable fact. But maybe I misunderstand your meaning here.



> I think the point is that until understanding is reached man will be and always has been in awe of the "unknown" by that I mean:
> 
> When Man encounters something that he does not understand he can just accept it and carry on, he can attribute it to supernatural causes and be in awe of it, he can try to find answers, I belong to the latter group.


But again here you're implying that there is only a twofold division, between the things that are known and understood (through science) and things that are unknown and not understood. I don't think that's correct: first, because scientific theories are not things we 'know' - they're models of reality that help us to predict physical outcomes. Second, because some of the things I know (in the most profound sense) aren't scientifically testable. To take a rather crude example: I 'know' that I love my wife, and that she loves me, though there is no way to prove that to any disinterested party. I can't say the same about quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity. The best I can say about those is that they are elegant, highly predictive and useful theories that will almost certainly be found wanting during the next 100 years or so.

I should make it clear once more that I'm not attributing anything to 'supernatural causes'. The choice is not between science and the supernatural; it's between science and other forms of knowledge, other ways of trying to understand the world. I've learned far more about how to live my life from the books of Ruskin, the music of Elgar and the paintings of Cezanne, than I have from the theories of Newton, Millikan or Schrodinger (even though I admire the work of all these people).


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> What a refreshingly open-minded (and engagingly eloquent) scientist you are. I'm enjoying your views - and largely agreeing with them - with every new post.


That's an embarrassingly nice thing for you to say - and almost impossible to respond to except by saying merely 'thank you'.


----------



## Guest

Elgarian said:


> It sounds as though you've made your own philosophical decision, because you're implying that you think the scientific method is the only route to knowledge: hence your question 'how can we test any other way?' Indeed, for a logical positivist, there is no other route to knowledge because his philosophy excludes any others as its most basic premiss.


Well I do make my own decisions rightly or not, however I asked "how can we test any other way", in hope that you would provide an answer as to your own route to knowledge outside of the material world and science


> I think you're limiting the choices far too much when you say the only alternative to science is guesswork and speculation.


So what other way is there? 


> The choice is not between science and the supernatural; it's between science and other forms of knowledge,


And what are the names of these other forms of knowledge?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> And what are the names of these other forms of knowledge?


Science is knowledge. Religion is just fairy tales and I couldn't be bothered getting into that. Science (theoretically... less so these days) provides us with the only possible answer that we have at this moment in history. It isn't knowledge, _possibly_ is prepares us for knowledge. Science is knowledge any more than it is a belief.



> So what other way is there?


The only alternative is faith and guesswork.



> I 'know' that I love my wife, and that she loves me, though there is no way to prove that to any disinterested party.


Yes there most certainly is. It is complicated but there are ways. It involves hormones, brain activity etc.



> It depends on whether or not you think 'the material world' (whatever that means) is all there is. But that's a philosophical issue


Not really, we are just energy.


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> I asked "how can we test any other way", in hope that you would provide an answer as to your own route to knowledge outside of the material world and science. So what other way is there? And what are the names of these other forms of knowledge?


Your question puzzles me, Andante, because I've given a number of examples, and indeed answers (at least, insofar as I know any), in the course of writing my last few posts - most particularly in my last one. Very briefly, to reiterate:

1. Try reading some Whitehead - he demonstrates clearly the limitations of logical positivism and provides an alternative philosophical model of the universe. (This is the guy who wrote _Principia Mathematica_ with Bertrand Russell - he's not some kind of crackpot pseudo-philosopher.)

2. We use alternative forms of acquiring knowledge all the time, as I've pointed out repeatedly in these posts. Most decisions we make in life are based on intuition - not science. Knowledge can come to us through the arts (indeed, a single painting can change an entire world view, no less than a scientific breakthrough); through watching; through listening; and simply talking to other people. Sometimes the most profound insights come when we're just sitting still. I get the impression, Andante, that you're expecting me to put forward some weird paranormal source of knowledge like reading tea leaves or something; but that isn't at all what I mean. Virtually every minute of every day we acquire knowledge that is not arrived at through the scientific method.

3. Consider Plato - one of the greatest thinkers of all, who, as it's frequently observed, laid the entire groundwork for the following two and a half millenia of western philosophy - to such an extent that it's been commented that all subsequent philosophy has been a mere footnote to Plato. Yet Plato lived many, many centuries before the advent of modern scientific method. How do you suppose he acquired knowledge?

4. Here's a question for you, in turn. If knowledge acquired through the scientific method is the only form of knowledge that means anything, then why do scientists live their lives so unscientifically?


----------



## Alnitak

The relation between science and knowledge is very interesting.

I’m not pretty sure that science is knowledge. On the contrary, I’d rather thing that science is the study of what we don’t know.

Furthermore, there are a lot of mysteries in scientific concepts. I used to study mathematics in the past, and what I can remember is that Mathematicians have built theories, which have nothing to envy to the deepest mysteriousness of religion. For instance, I could found a lot of mystic beauties in the non-Euclidean Spaces, and other infinite dimensional spaces (just try to imagine a four-dimensional space, then a five or six, and then an infinite – I doubt that you’ll go on talking about knowledge for a long time!)


----------



## Alnitak

As for God, I think like Charles Beaudelaire, (in order to add more confusion in the discussion) that God needn't exist for religion to be holy, and that God is the only being who need not even exist in order to reign.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> As for God, I think like Charles Beaudelaire, (in order to add more confusion in the discussion) that God needn't exist for religion to be holy, and that God is the only being who need not even exist in order to reign.


That doesn't really say much at all. Just gives religion an excuse to hide in the shadows. Unless I'm misreading.



> Most decisions we make in life are based on intuition - not science. Knowledge can come to us through the arts (indeed, a single painting can change an entire world view, no less than a scientific breakthrough); through watching; through listening; and simply talking to other people.


You seem to be confusing science with computers. We are humans, and while we run of these scientific elements (all of which can be explained through science - every decision we make, Artistic or otherwise - is explained thus), we don't need to be aware of them to live. After all, you are still alive.



> If knowledge acquired through the scientific method is the only form of knowledge that means anything, then why do scientists live their lives so unscientifically?


Have you stopped beating you're wife yet? That question is a fallacy; in order to ask a question the pre-assumes a proposition (and the given question _requires_ the proposition is accepted), that proposition actually has to be accepted. Given that you haven't actually proven and provided any evidence to support that proposition, the question you asked is a fallacious question.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> (just try to imagine a four-dimensional space, then a five or six, and then an infinite - I doubt that you'll go on talking about knowledge for a long time!)


It is impossible for a human to imagine that. Much like it is impossible for humans to imagine a new colour. (New colour, not just a mixed colour)


----------



## Elgarian

Yagan Kiely said:


> You seem to be confusing science with computers.


No, I do assure you that I'm not confusing science with computers. I'm talking about the scientific method - a well established and continuous process which, in its ideal, Popperian form, is about the collection of data, the construction of hypotheses to model those data, the suggestion and carrying out of new experiments to test those hypotheses, and the rejection or modification, of the hypotheses if (and when) the predictions fail. It's a brilliant and hugely successful procedure, as I've commented before, but it's essential that its limitations with respect to philosophy are understood. That's what I've been trying to explain in these posts.



> We are humans, and while we run of these scientific elements (all of which can be explained through science - every decision we make, Artistic or otherwise - is explained thus)


That sounds like a pretty big breakthrough that I must have missed. Have the results of all the experiments explaining all these things been published?



> That question is a fallacy


I think you misunderstood the context in which I was asking it. It was being claimed that the scientific method was the only valid source of knowledge. I was pointing out that even _scientists_ don't use the scientific method when making some of the most important decisions in their lives. Like the rest of us, they rely on things like intuition. In other words, even those people most familiar with the scientific method recognise, intuitively, that there are questions in life that require a different approach. That hardly seems a contentious statement, actually.

I _think_ you thought I was asserting that scientific models for predicting our behaviour can't be found - but that's not at all what I was talking about, and is an entirely different discussion.


----------



## Guest

*Elgarian* You have said a few times that "we don't live our lives scientifically" ? You may as well say "we don't live our lives artistically"  
All of our life is a learning process [love, fear, etc] as it is for all living things, there is nothing more to it, it is the _*life experience*_ that prompts some to philosophise , such as Whitehead and Russell who you advise me to read, you assume that I have not read these?? What audacity. 
However I am sure you did not intend to be rude so I will add this:
We live in a material world, it is every where, you just can't escape it, any fool will accept that we do not know every thing, the old saying "the more you know the more you realise that you don't know" is so true.
*BUT*, when we start to talk about non material things such as Spirituality as we have on this post, we enter a realm that is only in the mind and as a Scientist you will know how easily the mind can be tricked. All we have is 3 spatial dimensions plus time, this is what we experience, other dimensions have been suggested but we can not even imagine what these would be like how could we? our brains are not equipped to do this.

I was an Engineer and admit that this has influenced the way I perceive the World, I was also a musician for a while and experienced the artistic side of my life with great enjoyment and hope that this has added a kind of balanced view but until something convinces me otherwise I will be on the Science Wagon "warts and all"


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I was pointing out that even _scientists_ don't use the scientific method when making some of the most important decisions in their lives. Like the rest of us, they rely on things like intuition. In other words, even those people most familiar with the scientific method recognise, intuitively, that there are questions in life that require a different approach. That hardly seems a contentious statement, actually.


That is also a fallacy as it is a straw tiger. Do you really expect a human to spend thousands of dollars and years of research on every decision they make in life?



> That sounds like a pretty big breakthrough that I must have missed. Have the results of all the experiments explaining all these things been published?


Therer have been many studies - countless studies to do with art and specifically music. Love vs lust has been explained so have many other things.

The problem with arguing over religion, is that the only people qualified to do so are atheists, and then there is no point...


----------



## Alnitak

Yagan Kiely said:


> It is impossible for a human to imagine that. Much like it is impossible for humans to imagine a new colour.


Of course, I don't agree with you. It's not because YOU can't imagine such spaces and their mathematical proprieties, that it is also impossible for everybody.


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> such as Whitehead and Russell who you advise me to read, you assume that I have not read these?? What audacity. However I am sure you did not intend to be rude


Most certainly I didn't intend to be rude, and I apologise if my assumption offended you. In my defence, I'd say, first of all, that up to this point, I've never had this kind of conversation with anyone who _had_ any knowledge of Whitehead's philosophy. You're the first. Second, your adoption of what seems to be a type of logical positivism strongly suggested that you hadn't encountered Whitehead's arguments, so it seemed a sensible recommendation to make. Whitehead provides many of the answers you were asking me to supply, and I was actually trying to be helpful. (Incidentally, we make _musical_ recommendations to each other all the time in this forum, don't we? We don't see that as audacious or rude, even if we know the piece recommended already.)

I never was suggesting that we should apply the scientific method to our daily lives. On the contrary, I was pointing out that we _don't_ (indeed, as you say, we _can't_) do so. Instead, we depend on knowledge acquired through processes other than the scientific method. That was what you asked me about, Andante - I was only doing my best to respond to your question.

But we seem to have strayed far from the original intention of this thread, which after all was about our own, individual perceptions of purpose, not about the philosophy of science _per se_ - so maybe now would be a good time just to agree to differ?


----------



## Elgarian

Yagan Kiely said:


> Do you really expect a human to spend thousands of dollars and years of research on every decision they make in life?


Of course I don't. The whole point of my argument is that we _don't_ do that. What troubles me, here, is that you're taking all these comments of mine in isolation, out of the context of the bigger conversation that was going on, and as a result we're talking entirely at cross-purposes.



> The problem with arguing over religion ....


At no stage in this discussion have I been talking about religion. I've been talking about the philosophical limitations of scientific enquiry, in the context of a discussion of the 'purpose' of life.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> The whole point of my argument is that we _don't_ do that.


How does that argue anything though?



> At no stage in this discussion have I been talking about religion. I've been talking about the philosophical limitations of scientific enquiry, in the context of a discussion of the 'purpose' of life.


The alternatives to science are religious methods. Ergo, you were.



> It's not because YOU can't imagine such spaces and their mathematical proprieties, that it is also impossible for everybody.


It is impossible for a human to picture either. That is probably what I meant, bad wording.


----------



## Elgarian

Yagan Kiely said:


> How does that argue anything though?


 On its own, it argues nothing. It's part of a longer discussion, which you don't seem to have followed.



> The alternatives to science are religious methods. Ergo, you were.


I'm sorry, but that's nonsense, and I can't think of a gentler way to say it. I repeat, I have said nothing, and will say nothing, about religion in this discussion. I'm talking about the philosophy of science. I'm not even offering original ideas - I'm mostly just presenting (not very effectively, it seems) some of the conclusions of the mathematician and philosopher, A.N. Whitehead (which I find particularly compelling, myself).

Science isn't some form of absolute dogma. To propose that it is would be alien to the whole spirit of scientific enquiry as an essentially sceptical, questioning, self-testing process - not just in terms of physical experimentation, but philosophically too. The terrible irony here is that I'm starting to feel a bit like Galileo, attacked for his scepticism about the One True Faith - but in this case the One True Faith is Science. The even greater irony is that I've devoted a large part of my life to pursuing, teaching, and being fascinated by the process of scientific enquiry, so I could hardly be accused of undervaluing science, you would think!


----------



## Guest

Elgarian said:


> But we seem to have strayed far from the original intention of this thread, which after all was about our own, individual perceptions of purpose, not about the philosophy of science _per se_ - so maybe now would be a good time just to agree to differ?


Although I have read only a few Philosophers the last being Russell but over 15 years ago, I find that I agree with bits and disagree with other bits and unless something shakes me profoundly I tend to forget, as I get nearer to my "use by" date I tend to forget more and more, but I now regard Philosophy with a more "down to earth" and "not very serious" point of view it is after all only the opinions of a person at that particular point in their life, had some of them lived to day I wonder what they would have made of it all?? It is so easy on the internet to get the wrong context of a conversation and to get angry or upset over some remark or another. I still think my view is correct and you will consider yours similarly so I will go along with your wish to disagree but in peace.


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> I will go along with your wish to disagree but in peace.


In peace - most certainly; I never thought we'd disagree in any other way. (I think many of the great troubles in the world arise when disagreement is misinterpreted as hostility.)


----------



## SiegendesLicht

To attain happiness through knowledge, love and beauty.


----------



## SarahNorthman

Hmm knowing myself I honestly think my purpose is to create. Just what, I'm not sure. But I am a very creative person. And to take care of people. I honestly feel like I need to take care of people I come across. This is often detrimental to my own happiness and well being.


----------



## kv466

My purpose is entertain others through music and through the sharing of any and all knowledge I have attained throughout the years.


----------



## Ingélou

As I am a Catholic, I will quote the answer from the Catechism: 'God made me to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this life, and to be happy with Him in the hereafter.'

God is Truth, Love and Beauty. But if I didn't believe in God, what would I say? - That my life must be a work of art, so I'll try to *know* as much as possible, and to share my delight in that knowledge with others; and to *love* as much and as many as possible, so that my life will have been of some good to others.

If I aim at knowledge and love, happiness will probably come too; if I aim at happiness, I will probably fail to reach it.


----------



## Bulldog

PhilosophyMan said:


> Hello. I'm new here but I realy want to ask you...
> We've all gone through this phase in life, sometimes more often than others. But haven't you ever asked yourself, "Why am I on this earth"? What am I here for? Exactly just what is your purpose in life?
> P.S. Sorry If wrong section!


I don't think about that stuff much. When I was younger, I enjoyed beating others in whatever endeavor. Now, I just take it day by day.


----------



## science

My purpose is to learn and teach, to strive to be honest with myself, to comfort the suffering, to advocate for the oppressed, to assure strangers of their belonging, and to enjoy some of the pleasures that life offers.


----------



## PetrB

Simple: 42. ----------------------


----------



## trazom

To bring laughter, joy, occasional misery, and great music to people who have boring lives.


----------



## SixFootScowl

On the simplest level, our purpose in life is to serve God. This is done in helping others either in charitable acts, being a friend, and through your occupation.


----------



## Morimur

Simply put: Glorify GOD.

Admittedly, I could do a MUCH better job. This puts me in very bad position because I know and yet disobey. I realize this means nothing to the godless, so spear me any smart-*** remarks.


----------



## Couchie

We are mortal beings formed from star dust but certain to die and end up as worm food. And yet we have an undeniable will to live and a deep psychological desire for an eternal significance of our lives. 

The purpose of life is to find our reasons to live happy and peacefully even while honestly acknowledging this fundamental tragic paradox. And to avoid taking the easy way out by partaking in the mass religious delusion games or intoxicating yourself on the presumed superiority of your country, culture, material wealth, or power... and the other attempts at immortality leaving a devastating wake of destruction and pain going on for as long as history remembers.


----------



## spokanedaniel

My purpose in life is to walk up and down the sides of mountains.


----------



## Triplets

I don't think there is any purpose in life. We are all a blink in the eye of eternity, accidents of genetic material being united and briefly occupying this mortal coil. So enjoy it tot he fullest and listen to great music!


----------



## science

Morimur said:


> Simply put: Glorify GOD.
> 
> Admittedly, I could do a MUCH better job. This puts me in very bad position because I know and yet disobey. I realize this means nothing to the godless, so spear me any smart-*** remarks.


I can't tell whether you're sincere, but just in case: No need to be so defensive. You're doing a great job.


----------



## Giordano

If there is a purpose to my life, would I really want to know?
If I knew the purpose of my life, would I be happy?
Do I really want to know all I am able to know?
Would I be effective in my purpose if I knew more than I am able to know?

Apparently, there is a purpose for my being here, on the planet called Earth. 
From the personal perspective, it has been and continues to be a "bitch." 
In the "great scheme of things," it is what it is and needs to be done. 
That which is necessary, is a choice, to be of greater beauty.


----------



## TxllxT

וַיִּיצֶר֩ יְהוָ֙ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה (Gen 2:7) And the LORD God formed man _of_ the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7 King James)
This verse from the Bible is often used to show the LORD as a kind of potter, who uses clay
to form 'man'. But as my professor of theology pointed out, the Hebrew word for dust (עָפָר֙ )
just means the dried out topsoil, that is blown away with the wind. From this dust nothing
at all can be 'formed': just try and see: it just doesn't stick together and it immediately falls apart. My professor of theology continued: so the LORD formed man _who is nothing more than:_ dust of the ground. No pottery stuff, but the most useless of all what exists on earth: dust blowing in the wind. So the miracle of forming man happens to be miraculous itself on many levels. If we still want to stick to a material, from which He formed man, this material itself happens to be the most unsticky of all what there exists on earth. And exactly towards this dis-composite fluff, this throw-away rubbish - wonder of wonders - He showed compassion. 
So what do I think is my purpose in life? To walk & stand still in sheer amazement: "Good God, how is this possible?!" My purpose in life is to be a witness.


----------



## spokanedaniel

In Eastern North Dakota, along the great Red River of the North, dried-out topsoil needs only a bit of rain to turn it into what the locals call "gumbo," and which is the most fertile soil in the world. And while it does not contain clay, and is therefore unsuitable for pottery, it definitely does stick together, and indeed becomes rock-hard when it dries again. This "dust," once rainwater has fallen upon it, brings forth all manner of life. Speaking of the North Dakota soil, a farm boy once said to me, "You just drop a seed in the ground and jump back." No miracles are needed to make life from North Dakota gumbo.


----------



## ArtMusic

The purpose of life is a very simple one: considered yourself blessed to be here and now with family and friends, and enjoy every moment of it. Pure and simple.


----------



## Ralfy

I think it might be learning skills related to localization given the effects of peak oil, global warming, and permanent economic crises.


----------



## starthrower

Looking around my living room full of music. I would say my purpose is to keep the record business afloat, and hopefully put a few dollars in the pockets of unpopular musical artists.


----------



## ptr

I don't think that I have any other purpose then being a good and kind human being!

/ptr


----------



## sospiro

My purpose in life seems to be to prevent airlines, hotels and opera houses from going out of business ...


----------



## techniquest

My life is pointless.


----------



## Ingélou

Ah well, it won't be 'pointless' to your family and friends; and I hope it's enjoyable, anyway...


----------



## Guest

There is, IMO, no pre-ordained purpose - it's whatever you want to make it. For your own good, you'd better make it something purposeful!


----------



## Ukko

Well, I could say that my life's purpose is seasoning my soul for the undertaking of God's work in the next 'life'. Or I could say that my only real purpose is to provide material for soil improvement. What I _will_ say is that I don't know, I'm just winging it.


----------



## Giordano

Ukko said:


> I'm just winging it.


Yes, everyone has to do that on this planet.


----------



## techniquest

> Ah well, it won't be 'pointless' to your family and friends....


You make assumptions, but thanks for the thought.


----------



## Ingélou

techniquest said:


> You make assumptions, but thanks for the thought.


Yes, that you have family and friends with the usual emotions. Hope I'm right.


----------



## hpowders

OP: I'm just guessing....to post as much as humanly possible?

Sorry for the non-metaphysical reply, but I've always been a rather rational realist.


----------



## GreenMamba

Ukko said:


> What I _will_ say is that I don't know, I'm just winging it.





Giordano said:


> Yes, everyone has to do that on this planet.


He wrote "winging" not "whinging." Everyone doesn't have to do it, they just do it anyway.


----------



## Giordano

GreenMamba said:


> He wrote "winging" not "whinging." Everyone doesn't have to do it, they just do it anyway.


Since no purpose goes according to plan, winging it is what everyone does, consciously or unconsciously, so in this case, "has to" and "does" mean the same thing.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Just in response to the OP...

Why am I alive? A question I prefer to ask myself is "what am I doing here?" 

Sometimes I get the feeling of just saying "****** my life" because of whatever situation I may be in, but in the long run I tend towards the point of view that this is a rather selfish interpretation of my life. Asking myself what am I doing here, or even better: what am I going to do here, gives incentive to do what I love. Doing what I love, which is making music, gives me purpose for myself. But then again, giving myself a purpose based on my own passions about the things I like and what I can enjoy for myself tends toward the slightly selfish in some aspects too....so, what I then would ask myself what i can do for others as well. I end up creating music for myself, but for my peers as well and for certain people in certain circumstances. 

As I further broaden my mind I try to get a hold of the kind of impact I can make for the benefit of others in the long run...as a politically minded person I certainly don't want to become a politician but rather someone who is inspired by various issues we have in this world to represent in what I love doing as well. By doing this, if I ever become a professional composer with regular performances and things like that, I suppose I can make my music both an extension of myself, an offering I make to musicians and other people and also a way I can communicate my thoughts and ideas about the world in the hope I can leave the world with something to help make it a better place.


----------



## Vaneyes

Purpose? To keep track of what's happenin' in showbiz, of course.

Dead, Elly May at 81.:angel:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/02/showb...illbillies-elly-may-dead/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


----------



## Xaltotun

I am here to serve.


----------

