We get but one life on earth…(unless you’re a Buddhist or a Pythagorean and believe in the transmigration of souls!).
How best to use this sacred thing?
Some people will doubtless be of the opinion that we should do whatever makes us happy. Very well…but how can one predict what will??
I’m at a point in life where I’m having to make (very difficult) decisions about the future. How did/do other people make theirs and with what rationale?
Awesome question. Something that I would like to explore as I write this post. Hopefully the older members could share their words of wisdom, being that they have made more mistakes than we have thus far. 
It seems that one of the most primitive instincts we have as humans is for survival. And then everything after that is meant to keep us alive in one way or another. But then you wonder what next? What is this body of mine so worried about in its unrelentless desire for survival? My opinion was procreation.
Yes! The point to life is to procreate. To continue the species and pass your genes. I attribute this to some weird code within our DNA/RNA to evolve.
With this in mind I decided that the point of my life is to have a child and make sure that this child is better than I am. And that my personal goal is to improve myself as a person and improve those around me. Uplift the minds of the ignorant by being the intellectual version of Robin Hood. I speak to the wise and translate it to the closed minded.
I’m using my life as a means to inspire my future child. I want to be able to prove to him/her that their dad did everything, been everywhere, and spoke to all kinds of people about issues. When I give my child my opinion on a matter, it wouldn’t be ignorance but my objective recollections of all the points and different arguments on it.
By trying to be the example of what I think a person should be, hopefully one or two people in my family will notice it and try to emulate. That way my child is getting the reinforcement from more than one person. So here I am 23, debating and discussing. Going and meeting all kinds of people and trying to stay as open minded as possible.
Smooth,
I’d be some pissed to see your face on the evening news any time soon. The thing is, I’d probably be gunning for you if I were an Iraqi. Crazy world, eh? I hope you come home and do a whole lotta living.
Keep your head down buddy,
Michael
Interesting smooth.
I agree that often, the mere fulfilment of man’s most natural instincts gives him the biggest sense of self worth and happiness.
How did others make decisions about careers/ paths in life?
In our state of ignorance, the only plan is the plan to make a plan.
So one studies Ethics.
Of course you then realize that any Ethical system relies upon answers to certian metaphysical, epistomilogical, and logic questions. So you quickly become a phislosophy major…
…I’ll tell you the next step when I get there.
(and yes I am implying that everyone else is wasteing there life, but thanks for all the chicken tenders.)
I think life is to be lived, not used, even your own. Remember the quote, ‘live your life so completely that when death comes like a thief in the night, there is nothing left to steal.’ Personally I think there is no such thing as good, bad, better, worse, best or worst. The only thing that matters is living RESPONSIBLY. In which case, you automatically make the right decision, be it good or bad in another’s eyes or even your own, it matters not, because you would be taking into account your own and others’ rights. So, how best to use your life? I’d say, live it and live it responsibly, baby!
i’m with smooth… and aristotle …the point of life is procreation. no doubt about that. smooth, very well said… i don’t think i can possibly add anything to that. 
No. The “point” of life is death.
Procreation is a choice, not a necessity.
Try again.
Death is not a necessity.
Change, however, is.
So wouldn’t the point of life be change?
Alright, Rafa, I’ll work with you on this one.
If we are to say that a “purpose” for something is the reason for that something, such as, the gun is for shooting: the reason for the gun is to shoot, then without the need for there to be any shooting, a gun would have no purpose. If we, in turn, say that the reason for “shooting” is to regulate crime, for instance, and there was a case were there was no crime, then shooting would have no purpose. Reductio ad absurdum(sp?)
The point is that no single reason is sufficient to back any other particular purpose. All there is is a series of contingencies, which certainly have their own “purpose” and “reason” in themselves, but not necessary by themselves. In the case of “human life,” I suppose you could state that the “point” of it would be to reproduce, since that is indeed a possibility, and with a “reason” in mind, reproduction would be useful: I want a kid…the purpose for my existence is to have one. However, again, if I didn’t want to have a kid, could there be such a purpose for reproduction in my life? No.
Will I go to McDonalds for dinner tonight? Maybe, maybe not. Neither is necessary. Will I wear my work pants two days in a row? Maybe, maybe not. Neither is necessary. Will I, (and lets keep this argument metaphysics free, please), stop existing when I fall over dead.
Absolutely.
Which of the three situations is necessary?
Right. And how can a “purpose” exist when there are alternatives? I don’t have to eat at McDonalds. I don’t have to shoot a gun to regulate crime. I don’t have to wear the same clothes two days in a row.
But I gotta die, Rafa.
That, at least, is how I understand the matter.
I also have trouble contemplating “change” in the sense that you mention it. I can imagine a universe that consists of a finite amount of “stuff” which, at some eventual point during its existence, will repeat a previous combination or state. “Change,” then, would inevitably only mean, “preparing for repetition.” Still, it is equally paradoxical to concieve of such a closed system universe without it being “somewhere” with something “outside” of it. Follow me?
On the other hand, imagining an infinite universe, one that is not a closed system within itself and regulated by its own laws, frys my brain as well. Admit it, these are telelogical issues that, sans God, will only make sense. Let’s not go there.
Essentially, Rafa, what you are doing is taking advantage of the fact that I can’t prove that death is an end of my/this consciousness, and can therefore refute my claim that death is the only purpose to life.
You ask “so wouldn’t the point of life be change?”
I can’t answer that safely one way or the other. Depends on what kind of universe we are in, and whether or not “consciousness” needs “stuff” to be aware of and exist.
But I can safely assume that because I know that I can’t choose to live on after I am dead like I would choose the chicken sandwich over the cheeseburger, that the only absolute purpose for my life is to die.
Make sense?
Nanook,
Right now I’m on some serious medication and in pain from my latest installment of the wonderful Anthrax shot the Navy likes giving us. So I’m not even going to try to understand what you wrote. You lost me buddy, but it’s okay… we hopefully have tommorrow and I could read it with a more clear mind. That’s the beauty of a forum.
How is death not a necessity? Don’t all our bodies decay? I thought that death was the only thing, next to my ability to doubt, that was a certainty.
And I agree with you 1000000000000000% on the change issue.
I have four truths or axioms that I stand by.
Life is pain / suffering
Life is change
Everything is imperminent (or nothing is real)
There is a Force
I sort of added the fourth one. But I got this from reading The Three Pillars of Zen. And the second law of life is something that is self-evident. Everything changes. From the minute to the major. If I were to turn my head, the image of the room will change. People and their personalities change. So yes, the point of life is change. And what better way to change the globe than by nuturing a more evolved mind other than your own.
We already have been tainted by our experiences, but a child isn’t. That is why I don’t do children magic shows anymore. Because they aren’t really amazed. In their little minds they don’t know that a dollar isn’t souppose to be able to float. They think I’m some sort of super-hero, but magic is still real to them like Santa and the Easter bunny and the big Marshmellow in the sky.
I’m not saying that because the point of life is to procreate that you have to. You could procreate in other ways. An author that writes and his thoughts pass ages and generations procreates ideas. The influence you put to your friends when you state your veiws will affect them. And they in turn will teach their children, indirectly, those opinions based on the views of others (whether pro or con). You affect others, and others affect others. Depending on how stable your personal philosophy is, I think that is how much you influence others. So yes you change others, and others change you.
I think I lost my point, but than again I’ve been drugged by most of your tax dollars.
wow nanook, that’s an amazing theory. wait…let me check…right. sorry buddy. the thing is, aristotle’s final causality has been disproven not just once, but on several different occassions by several outstanding thinkers (none of which, by the way, felt the need to be so condenscending in the presntation – interesting, huh? here’s a tip, i know that those introduction books to philosophy like being cheeky b/c that’s how they sell books, but if you haven’t noticed, they also use illustrations, which might be a tip off as to the seriousness of the arguements. when you want to present grown up ideas, be prepared to do so b/c otherwise, it’s all too easy to shoot you down, especially for uni students in the middle of exams who like to sound smart).
basically, nanook, you’re assuming that there’s a necessary truth in human death because…??? you haven’t stipulated. you’re probably assuming that because all humans in the past die, and because all mortals die, you are going to die. huh. so let’s review. using the past to prove the necessary connection btw causal inferences…wait! hume, sections 6 (around there) says this is begging the question!! you can’t do that buddy! doesn’t that suck when you don’t think through theories before posting?
change isn’t as simple as you would like to illustrate, for other reasons. but i won’t bother explaining it, b/c the hume bit is really basic and you should try to digest that first.
apologies to rafa for speaking for you, i just had to prounce
trix,
I’m confused because while I am impressed by your temperment, you just blow smoke and cite your text books, so I’m stuck between laughing and adoring you. If only you were saying something, every thing else would be perfect.
You are rigging my post with make believe traps. That might work in your student cafeteria discussions, because you’re just there to look smart anyway(hey, you said it, not me), ya’ can’t lose. But I don’t give a rats ass about intelligence, I consider it a curse. I’m not hear to “look” smart, and I refuse to talk to someone who is.
So what’s it gonna be? Is Descartes still an Empiricist, or are you willing to admit that even if he was(which he wasn’t), it wouldn’t matter anyway when regarding what I say.
[wink]
You spend more time correcting dates and quotes than actually thinking, dear.
Nothing I have said has violated Hume’s concept of causalty. And I never said that a final, or an initial for that matter, cause was conceivable or possible without a God, an “external agent.” I don’t need Aristotle to tell me that. I also said I was avoiding the depth of these questions so to merely accept on a practical level that as far as you know, when you die…you die.
Someone mentioned “purpose.”
I gave my two cents(as if you could handle more than that).
So back off.
I don’t read your posts anyway, sweetie, so in the furture, just send eveyone a private message about me and drool over it there.
Life’s for life … but what’s life?
You’re right to some extent, but I’d say that the point of life cannot be change because even though we all need change but we rarely like it when it comes, specifically when it comes as an adversity.
I’m sorry I’m being so brief these days. It’s a school thing.
Trix, thanks . I don’t really take insult to De’trop though. He’s a smart cookie and has the right to show off his massive ego because he supports it with his massive intellect. If I were to shun him…well that would make me a hypocrite.
I think the main problem I have with your argument is that you …
Ok, “you” has come up in many conversations with you, De’trop. You take a strong Sartrean stance on this issue. In other words, extreme nihilism. You don’t believe in the validity of the cogito. Because you think “I” is implied which is what we’re also trying to prove. This seems like a similar problem to your claim that “I” is implied before it’s proven.
When you state that the purpose of life is death, you’re stating that death is an absolute.
Problem #1: Death is not absolute. Like Trish said, there’s a major problem with the final cause…it’s not needed.
Problem #2: Life is not. That’s a complete statement…“life is not”. In the same way you have to possess essense in order to lose essense, you also have to have life in order to die. However, what makes you say that you’re full of essense…you could just exist. I mean…existence does preceed essense.
Problem #3: Undefined term: purpose/point. To some, the journey is more important than the destination. This would make the trip the point of the journey. Ever go someplace just to go? Why did you go there? To say you made the trip. What if life is like this? This would make death absolutely meaningless as it is merely the limit of the purpose, not the purpose/point itself. Yes? How do you refute this without making assumptions that you’re not stating.
Problem #4: The point serves no purpose beyond the self. To say that the purpose/point of life is to die is very solipsistic of you, yes? I’ve abandoned this concept…are you adopting it?
Problem #5: The First Cause isn’t necessary, and therefore, neither is purpose. This one is a pain. While everyone want’s to assume there’s a meaning to life… you can’t really prove that at all. Causality assumes purpose…A->B, Dog eats cat, Dog doesn’t starve, cat dies. Moving back further, a First Cause would have to be necessary (eventually) for anything to have cause or causal meaning. The First Cause is a logical fallacy though…one that I’m sure you’re aware of. It’s a simple solution to a complex problem, but one that is neither here nor there and just as dogmatic as religion. This means that causality is still an infinite regress, which means that causality itself may not be necessary. Since purpose is a function of causality as seen through human eyes, purpose itself is not necessary. To say that anything that isn’t absolutely certain and happening and a function of reality is the purpose is mere speculation. This makes death irrelevant in terms of purpose/point, as it is not immediate enough. (yes, change is immediate…it is neither here nor there but the difference between here and there).
I dunno, what do you think?
Ummm, “let’s not go there”. Why not? It’s exactly the subject matter at hand. That…those paragraphs. They’re gibberish, really. I dont mean that as an attack, but they just don’t follow well and …well… they’re not at all correct. I mean… yeah, just show me life without movement. Life is defined by its movment…no matter the definition of life. All life is shown through change. Change exists if life exists. I don’t see…I don’t see your problem here.
Yes, I am picking on the fact you cannot prove that you’re going to die. Sorry if it bothers you. I’m still right and you’re still wrong.
False. Surely a phenomenological examination of “consciousness” has nothing to do with ethics(which sustains nihilism). You know that, Rafa. It is a bit extreme to call one a “nihilist” because of a certain degree of skepticism in traditional metaphysics. I could be a solipsist(which I’m not) and believe that everything is a creation of my mind, but that doesn’t mean I’d find it viable to kill yo momma. Once again we have a typical case where someone spends thirty minutes with Sartre and thinks he’s got em’ pegged. Yer killin me, dude. Sartre is far from a nihilist. He’s just so utterly complex and profound, people take offense when they don’t understand him. “Ah fuck it…I don’t have a clue what he’s sayin, but it sounds dark and brooding…so I’ll call him a nihilist,” right?
Let me summarize my position here regarding the topic(purpose). Any discussion about the phenomena of consciousness should be in the phenomenology thread(Husserl, bless his soul, is no longer with us).
This is becomming a semantic nightmare. Listen to me closely. Purpose is a psychological entity, you cannot find it in logic, mathematics, or the objective world. No event in this world has a purpose because it needn’t be in the first place, it is contingent. Purpose is merely a psyche function that is attributed to an event as an indicator of a succession during a progression with an intentional end in mind. Let’s look at it.
What is the purpose of mathematics? Hell, forget that, what does mathematics do? It calculates quantities. Why? What’s the purpose of that? An 8 is just 8 1’s. The universe doesn’t care what I call “that many 1’s.” Mathematics is a mode in which I experience the world that has no purpose in itself. As a tool, however, it would be expected that if I invent a language of numbers where I demanded that 1+1=2, I would use mathematics for such a purpose: it would indicate the succession of numbers, their relationship, and the intended outcome of the end of the equation.
Here I am forcing the idea of “purpose” to become exempt outside of the human psychological context. That means, when you try to deduce my statements, such as:
“you state that the purpose of life is death, you’re stating that death is an absolute”
…down to logical symbols with binary values so that you can catch me in this contradiction:
“If I say that death is the purpose of life, then I am also saying that death is an absolute if it itself doesn’t serve as a purpose for yet another event”
…they will inevitably make no sense. I know that, knew that, and keep that in mind.
My point, Rafa, is that a human life is a biological life that is psychologically geared toward the anticipation of death. It pervades every level of our thinking. No matter how far we go with this logical metaphysical bullshit, the animal in you, the intuition in you, the gut in you, tells you its curtains. We can argue Hume and Aristotle all day, that’s old school, dude.
I’m here on planet earth wading in existential waters. They are deep. You, try as you might, can not take the weight of the sense of ultimate meaninglessness out of the heart of the question of “purpose.” You cannot save any grace by delineating the human question: “what is my purpose” by some shit like:
“Hey man, because I can’t concieve of a first cause, via Hume and some logic I learned in third period, then I can’t say that I’ll die because if I were to say that death was the ultimate purpose of my life, I would be assuming that death was an end, and that would violate my Humean moorings.”
My previous post was fine, and an end to the argument, if you ask me.
Purpose.
A function something serves:
The purpose of the gun is to shoot…
The purpose of the universe is to…
Well?
lame. that hurt when i read it. this was me, puking in my mouth, as i read your post. —> 
You’ve developed into a blithering dogmatic fool, Detrop.
You make lots of claims, but you back up very very very few of them.
As such, I’m going to have to resort to an argumentation technique developed by Socrates. I apologize if I do not adhere to the method as well as he did.
Why.
Why.
Do I?
What if they aren’t being called a nihilist for this reason only? What if they called themself a nihilist?
What’s your point?
Do we? Is that really the case? Why do you know him better? Does the possibility exist that you read him wrong?
Am I?
But not you? Are you superior?
Why? If death is to have purpose/point/meaning, what is death? Why do you find this irrelevant? Are you avoiding the points? Can the portable de’trop be wrong?
I’m listening to you as close as I can, de’trop. Am I deaf? I hear little from you but rambling sophistry and contrary behavior. Am I just missing your point, or do you even have a point?
How is this different from what I said above? (problems #3, #5)
Does this long, drawn out, self hyped example have personal purpose to you? It doesnt to me. (read:filler so you look smarter than you are)
How is this different from your original statement?
Ahhh if the hands only wrote what the mind thinks, this world would be a much more honest place, would it not? (You…fucking…douchebag)
And what changes occur as a result of this “anticipation of death”? Have you considered the notion that some people really do consider themselves immortal? What would the purpose of their life be? Should they stop existing or transcend human form because they lack this notion? Am I God? Do you see that making absolute statements as a moral reletivist makes you look foolish. Do you see that claiming a value to be personal and reletive on the one hand and then supporting it universally by saying that all men must do it is a contradiction…a DIRECT contradiction? Do you see that if you had adhered to Sartre’s words like the sheep you fucking are, you would have said that life has no purpose?
Do you regret saying that the purpose of life is to die?
While you, on the other hand…
Is that what I’m saying? Have you read anyone other than Sartre? Do you know what YOU’RE talking about?
Then why didn’t the argument stop there? (you pompous dolt)
Is it? What is the difference between a use and a purpose?
Shoot what? Things? Why? Murder? Guns are made to kill? What is the purpose of a B-B gun? What is the purpose of a car? What is the purpose of a car that kills 4 people in a car wreck and is destroyed? Did it fufil its purpose?
Be itself once and never again as it passes through the curtains of change.
1-919-404-2182