Responses I seek will apply to every known life form, including single celled organisms, humans, plants, insects, and sea creatures; and relate directly or indirectly to meaning/purpose humans typically attribute to life.
Christianity says the body is worthless and that the spirit within is all-important.
That makes sense to me…
We can therefore regard the body simply as a “launch pad” from which the soul takes off after the body dies.
The soul leaving the body can be regarded as a final evolutionary “giant leap” of the spirit, taking over where fleshly evolution leaves off…
All lower life forms are simply the base layers of the natural pyramid that keeps humans at the apex…
For almost every being it is the continuation of ones genetics. But for humans a “successful” being is one whose ideas continue to live on.
The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
function of life?
There are billions upon trillions of functions happening all around you every second of every day.
You want to “find” “the function”? Bah…
Very fancy self-replecation.
While humans as
, perpetuating
, and
are two familiar perspectives, each troubles me.
Apex seems to imply to exist as human is ultimate and all other life forms serve human existence. However, people profess belief in existence beyond human life. If human existence provides a
, where is the next destination?
What is the benefit of continuing genetic material?
In some fashion each perspective positions human life at the center of the universe, a position that feels circular to me
It occurs to me, that a possible path of exploring purpose is identifying function across everything that experiences life. If this is possible, it might provide, for some, criteria to compare perspectives about purpose.
For example: Every living organism possesses energy and mass. They also use their energy to redistribute environmental mass. This process changes the organism’s mass until it’s mass can no longer produce sufficient energy to sustain itself. At that moment, commonly identified as death, the energy leaves the mass to be processed by other organisms possessing energy and mass.
A potential functional description of this process is to sustain energy through the reallocation of environmental material, aka mass.
This could suggest that a purpose of life is to perpetuate energy through the reallocation of resources. If so, then measures of effective living could include relative amounts of reallocated matter that sustain and perpetuate the production of energy by living organisms compared with the amount of reallocated matter that consumes energy and renders matter less useful to living organisms.
Does the net result of energy increase resources for sustaining energy or decrease resources that sustain energy.
functions suck.
Everything doesn’t have to have a function or a purpose for it to be happy.
To enjoy life and to be happy is my human choice. I don’t care what the function bullshit of my genes are . . . we all know it is procreation and survival.
functionalism is only useful in theory, it is seldom useful in every day living.
======
Function of life: is for everything to obey the law, God’s law. Microorganisms can be helpful or harmful, plants and trees bear fruits or flowers for us to enjoy or eat, the sea provides food for us and larger sea animals or as a means of travel. Humans strive for perfection.
The function of life is to get over these questions
that’s my fucken answer as well
Or just realize that there is no answer to these questions (AHA! they’re meaningless!) and stop asking them and go and eat some burritos.
…to live life as long as possible without too many screwups, i.e., before it becomes ‘a tale told by an idiot’.
^^^ yourthoughts lissen and learn.
true dat.
there are the answers.