I was watching an episode of Star Trek: Next Generation, the one about the life form, named Gomtuu, specifically created to harbor and care for carbon-based life on a symbiotic basis. When a radioactive event in space destroyed the life within it, Gomtuu no longer wanted to live and decided to orbit a dying star until it finally exploded. A telepath on board the Enterprise, named Tam Elbrun, was also very unhappy with being too telepathic, and decided to make it his mission to merge with Gomtuu. Anyway, the mission of the Enterprise was to rescue Gomtuu, and on the way, Tam Elbrun and Data have a very interesting philosophical conversation about life and purpose, as follows:
Tam Elbrun: Must living beings have a purpose? Or do we exist for no reason but to exist?
Data, on learning that Gomtuu no longer had anyone to care for and wished to die: Is that the purpose of existence? To have someone to care for?
Tam Elbrun: It is for me.
Thus, it was very touching to see the way that Gomtuu and Tam Elbrun came to merge and find new life together. However, I’m not so sure that I agree that life has to have a purpose. I think I incline towards the view that life is its own excuse for being, and that maybe there’s a way that purpose is important to humans psychologically but is irrelevant to life qua life.
Everyday I wake up and then I really want to live!
I feel joyful for every aspect of life, even the suffering part sometimes.
And it interests me where that feeling comes from, why I feel this way.
I don’t use theories to make my life livable, I use it to explain my feelings!
Are there more people here who think purpose sounds as if you are doing it for someone else?
The word purpose really sounds… fake. But alright I’m not a Englishmen!
I agree that I don’t need the idea of “Purpose” to still live in joy,
But it gives me tremendous inner-piece to think of everyone in the whole world, getting experience.
It is a thinking shelter for if I see a lot of suffering. At least everyone gets experience.
I’m then able to see beyond the mere human tragedies, I feel it is not my ‘purpose’ to fix the world.
by the way, I like the habit of saying thanks so I’ll copy it from you!
Thanks ^^
I’m a big fan of virtue ethics, I’m gonna go ahead and say that if we define humans without any particular telos or end, then our entire moral vocabulary ceases to make sense. Given that there are many large moral narratives; indeed, moral narratives form a very important part of what we consider to be “culture”, I think it is fair to say that we are at least capable of producing a coherent moral vocabulary. Furthermore, the principles of the moral narratives appear to readily translate across cultures, so it would seem as though there is a fundamental sameness to human beings. Indeed, this observation is supported by the notion of an innate moral grammar that all humans possess.
Does this mean that life “has” to have a purpose? Well, no. It is theoretically possible for someone to live a purposeless life. However, lives devoid of a clear telos are marked by alienation. Taken on a societal level, this leads to anomie which further perpetuates the breakdown.
But not all ends that humans are directed towards can be considered “desirable”. And that is where the problems start . . .
Wouldn’t an innate morality device sort of obviate against free will? Even so, I don’t see much evidence of it among many humans out in the world.
I think it is important to human psychology for us to feel like we have a purpose or that each of our lives has purpose. But to my way of thinking that is different from saying that life itself has purpose or must have purpose. Life just is.
I’m not sure what you mean by “telos” here. Maybe you could elaborate on that because I don’t want to speak on it in a way that you didn’t intend. Once that is clarified, I will have some questions on your causal series going from lack of purpose to the breakdown of society.
Till then, may virtue be its own reward.
As for humans being directed towards ends, doesn’t that also imply lack of self determination or free will? Methinks that you are perhaps a determinist, and I’m not sure how to factor that into the mix of purpose, lack thereof, and telos. Maybe it will all clarify later after you get a chance to reply.
I think that the purpose of an instance is equal to its function.
Meant-to-do has to do with the nature of doing.
In this context all energy has purpose. It’s not all our purpose, but it’s still a purpose.
The fundamental mistake that humanity made somewhere along the line, is, or was, or whatever is the correct verb, to experience this separateness from the totality of life. At that time there occurred in man, which includes woman also, this self-consciousness which separated him from the life around. He was so isolated that it frightened him. The demand to be part of the totality of life around him created this tremendous demand for the ultimate. He thought that the goals of truth or reality would help him to become part of the `whole’ again. But the very attempt on his part to become one with or become integrated with the totality of life has kept him only more separate. Isolated functioning is not part of nature. But this isolation has created a demand for finding out ways and means of becoming a part of nature. But thought in its very nature can only create problems and cannot help us solve them.
We don’t seem to realize that it is thought that is separating us from the totality of things. The belief that this is the one that can help us to keep in tune with the totality is not going to materialize. So, it has come up with all kinds of ingenuous, if I may use that word, ideas of insight and intuition.
Our innate hunger-sensing device doesn’t obviate against free will but simply nudges us in the direction of a certain choice, unlike our innate burn-avoidance device that forces us to withdraw our hand from a hot plate without thinking. There are degrees.
The innate morality argument is appealing, we are social creatures and most humans feel empathy with others. But morality is not empathy; morality overrules empathy every time we place political ideals over the comfort of those close to us. In fact, justice can demand it.
If morality were innate, then how could it be over-ridden? Can breathing be over-ridden? Can learning a language be over-ridden? Can burn-avoidance be over-ridden? No, they can’t. An innate device cannot be over-ridden. Hence, I do not see how morality can be innate; rather I see it as an invented tool.
For a given decision-making process, innate drives and senses can be overridden. Sleep can be overridden, to the point that your brain just shuts down. Hunger can be overridden, to the point that one starves to death. You still have the freedom to choose to read a book instead of get a sandwich. If you can’t override breathing with a conscious choice, you’ll drown. You can decide not to learn a language, thousands of expats do just that.
Burn avoidance, as I said, cannot be overridden in the sense that if intense heat takes you by surprise, you’ll move your hand away before you’re conscious of it. But seeing a red-hot poker, you can force yourself to grasp it if you must. You can rationally force yourself to amputate something if the alternative is death; that doesn’t mean that pain is not innate. Innate devices can be overridden.
Breathing cannot be over-ridden. Learning language is also innate. Read Chomsky. This device does turn off about the age of twelve, but up to then it is an innate, built-in device. There are certain built-in devices that are innate and cannot be over-ridden. If morality were innate, it too could not be over-ridden.
Morality is not a built-in, innate device. It is an invented tool that people use to manage groups and their relationships in these groups. However, it is clearly not deterministic or built-in, in that people over-ride it all the time. Also, stress factors can cause it to disintegrate anywhere any time.
The space between the cause and effect relationship doesn’t operate all the time. When there is a demand, then it can be said that that is probably the cause of this and this is the result of that cause, but actually there is no space between cause and effect. So the instrument which we use, that is, thinking, or even thoughts, are born out of the cause and effect relationship and there is no way you can understand anything without creating the space between the cause and effect.
For example, death itself is a concept. The body does not know that it is alive at this moment and you are not there to preside over your own death. So, for all practical purposes, there is no way I can tell myself that I am living, that I am alive. If you ask me the question, “Are you alive or are you dead?”, I would certainly say that, “I am alive.” Why I say “I’m alive”, is because of what I’m taught by the physiologists and what the doctors tell us. I am able to talk and respond and so because of that, they conclude that I am a living being. That is the common knowledge that is passed onto us, but there is no way that I can experience the fact, that this is a living organism. No way. So, when it is dead, all the knowledge that we have has to come to an end.
We are only interested in one thing: ‘How?’. Everyone asks the question ‘How?’. ‘How?’ means you want to know. By knowing more and more, you have maintained the continuity of this knowledge. So, you don’t want that to come to an end. We know a lot, but at the same time we are all the time asking this question, ‘How?’
There is no such thing as total attention, at all. It is just not possible. For example, if you look at that curtain which is moving with the wind. It is the one thing that is demanding your attention. I never tell myself what the eyes are looking at and there is no way I can be separated from what is there. I cannot separate myself from what the eyes are looking at unless there is a need for that. And that need arises from somebody else who asks me something. My actions are not self-initiated. So, the moment the thought is born there, the action is over. The separation occurs only when the knowledge comes in and tells me that “that is a white curtain.” Otherwise where is the need for me to tell myself that?
So, why we do it is very simple. It is because we have to maintain the continuity of knowledge. That is the only reason. For example, you say that “that is white and that is blue, you are this and that” and you go on and on and on. That need is the only thing that is there; it is not the ‘I’, not the Self. Nothing is there, except the need to maintain the continuity of the knowledge you have about things out there and the things inside you.
This body is born with an extraordinary intelligence, unparalleled intelligence. And there is no way you can match this with any amount of knowledge you have. You cannot. So, whatever you think is good for this body, whatever ideas you are putting into this body, it is rejecting. That is why it doesn’t need to know anything, it doesn’t need to have anything more. That applies to every area of our existence. So, what I am stressing is how the body, freed from this strangled hold of culture, functions. And there is no way you can control the functioning of this body. The body doesn’t actually need all that we deliver to it.
People who are thinking all the time are practically blind, in the sense that they have never looked at anything in their life. For example, you have a couple. That fellow has never looked at her, or she at him, because the only way he looks at her, or her at him, is with the knowledge she has about him and you project that knowledge on that person, but actually there is no way the physical eye can look at anything. You have to have knowledge about that. We project that knowledge on what we are looking at. So, in exactly the same way, the Reality that is talked about is something which cannot be experienced at all, or known at all unless you use the knowledge you have about the Reality of things, whether it is a scientist or a religious man talking about Reality, or pure perception. There can’t be any perception first of all, let alone pure perception. So, these are all theories.
I’ve just written this entire paragraph without breathing. Amazing. Similarly, I can choose to do something immoral even though it makes me feel uneasy.
Aaaand breathe.
Edit: Is hunger not innate, then? An invented convenience?
You keep stating and restating this without addressing the link that Xunzian supplied. It’s an empirical matter, not one for dogma.
As it happens, I agree with you. Empathy is innate - prevocal children give ample evidence of this - but this is not the same thing as morality.
People can choose not to breathe, or even incur an injury or condition that impedes breathing. Breathing is over-ridden all the time, hence death.
Ah, but most of us have innate psychological faculties like the conscience, and emotional sentiment such as empathy or compassion. Even a sociopath has values - though not nearly as affected by his sentiments. Value placement seems innate, as does emotional attachment (to some degree) – thus, some manner of ethic/morality is born. Just because a person might deviate from his ethic, does not necessarily mean it is “over-ridden”. This is why we have concepts like cognitive dissonance.
As an example, someone with an innate ability to see can become blinded (short or long term). That doesn’t mean the ability is not innate though. Have you ever fallen asleep in an uncomfortable place - like you’re tired, and you know you need sleep, but you don’t feel safe in not being awake and aware? In essence you are over-riding, or deviating from, your ability to see, and be aware, by doing so; even against your better judgment. This is not much different from a moral deviation. Deviations need little more than a little justification, giving one the ability to see his deviation as actually moral, or amoral. I do think these values, and sentiments, are gathered and conditioned empirically though.
I actually agree with this, but i think that value placement, in conjunction with our sentiments, naturally leads to some manner of ethic. This is highly relative, and devoloped empirically (as far as I can tell), but I think that these innate faculties naturally collide at some point.
So what? You can’t choose not to breathe for long. You can choose to invent morals or not, or to follow morals or not, for as long as you want.
No it’s a matter of comparing apples and oranges. Morality is an abstract construct of the mind applied to the physical world. It is not determined by a built-in biological device, the way breathing and language acquisition are.
What’s happened is that the determinists here are trying to force determinism on an issue that is at heart undeterministic.
It is born of multiple biological and psychological devices, just like breathing and language. None of these are determined by a single ‘device’, and probably shouldn’t be reduced to such. Also, I fail to see how any of this plays into determinism. That something exists is not immediate evidence that its existence is determined.
People are born without the ability to breathe, or in a mental handicap that leaves them unable to attain an understanding of language. In the same regard, certain handicaps or circumstances can leave a person without a capacity for morals. Every group has its standard deviations.
To go back to the point I added as a late edit: is hunger not innate, then? An invented convenience?
OK, keep restating it as a bald fact, without the slightest argument or back-up. Ignore any contrary evidence or debate, it’s safer. Philosophy is clearly to prove you right, not to make you right.
What terrible brutes. You’d better stop your ears and close your eyes.
OK, keep restating it as a bald fact, without the slightest argument or back-up.
[/quote]
My argument is that people choose to invent different moral structures or concepts or not to invent them, and that humans choose not to follow moral guidelines all the time. If morality were a built-in device like breathing or language-acquisition, there would be no choice involved.
This bit about built-in morality is a false construct dreamed up by the determinists who want to see the world that way. But in the case of morality, it just isn’t so. There is free will operating there.
Just curious here – how would you explain something like a nagging conscience?
In my opinion, that is a pretty clear indicator that a morality exists even when we don’t want it to, or we wish to deviate from it. We still recognize that there is something being deviated from, some standard not being adhered to.
Why?
We can choose when/how/why we use built-in ‘devices’; no?
Motivation is what causes us to do something, whereas justification is why we say that we did or plan to do something. The line between these two concepts is often confusing because we cannot divorce ourselves from our passions so we often conflate the justifications we give with our motivations. I find the following excerpt from the first chapter of former Vice-President Al Gore’s book, “The Assault on Reason” illuminating:
Keep that in mind as you read the following excerpt from the article I posted earlier:
In this view, morality is far closer to language than anything else. You keep claiming that breathing (where precise means of both voluntary and involuntary control have been largely defined) is equivalent to language acquisition (where the precise means of neither voluntary nor involuntary control have been clearly defined).
I’m not sure you can say that morality is any different from language acquisition, or even breathing. I can act immorally, just as surely as I can hold my breath or choose not to speak with someone. Unlike breathing, but very much like language, the system also contains within it a great deal of ambiguity. Derrida’s philosophy of language is essentially bullshit, but he does manage to eloquently make the point that if we choose to make ourselves unintelligible we can succeed in that endeavor. However, that does not mean that all language is an abstract and fundamentally private matter.
The notion of people inventing different (albeit fundamentally similar) moral structures as arguing against innate moral grammar makes about as much sense as arguing that because different languages exist, there is no innate ability for language. Indeed, we can surmise that they developed under similar circumstances and pressures. Human beings are social animals after all, and have been for longer than they have been anything we’d recognize as “human”. And both language and morality are incredibly beneficial to social organisms.
