I was just reflecting that this is a step I’ve been using in my posted arguments lately, and am not sure it’s well-founded enough. So I thought I’d ask if this is a legitimate step to take. Let me explain…
By the “meaning of life”, I mean the definition we give to life. It’s essence.
By the “Meaning of Life” I mean the bigger concept: – what is the meaning we attach to existence.
I would say they are the same, in part, based on Aristotle’s statement that in natural things the formal cause (the essence) is also the final cause (the purpose). The purpose of tree is to be tree. The purpose of man is to be man.
This is a rather difficult question; as many people will put forth their individual belief systems.
From a biology standpoint : Procure the safety of our genetic information by breeding with superior quality beings.
Abrahamic religions: To serve God and follow his word.
Hindi and Buddhists: Escape the repetitive Samsara by attaining Moksha and living a just life.
The people who will agree with your statement most likely will be those of a humanistic approach.
And now to throw the real wrench in. If Artistotle’s statement is examined then what does it mean to be a “man”? And that is the real choking point I believe for the argument. Establish that and we will see what we can get from it.
The meaning of life, so to nebulously speak, is to be what you are like the rest of us, to be who you uniquely are, and to participate in seeking, finding and respecting the truth of reality.
Im sorry but doesn’t this belong in another forum? Yes I’m sure we can find a way to defend it should be here because it relates to the meaning of life sorta, and that sorta relates to religion. But it doesn’t seem like it’s that relevant…
If this is ok, maybe I should start posting some paradoxes for us to have fun with and then defending that they have words, we use words, and were unsure about life, and that relates to religion so it belongs in the forum, but I don’t think that will fly.