marieltrokan Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 Lee Harvey Oswald. Hayley Atwell. John Carpenter. Cleopatra. Masters and Johnson. Any internet user. Any mammal. Any species. Is any living being's thoughts the reason of existence?
dimreepr Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 Are you looking for the meaning of life or life's meaning?
marieltrokan Posted June 18, 2016 Author Posted June 18, 2016 I'm asking if any life form's thoughts are the meaning of life.
dimreepr Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 Any thought's I, or any being, may have, changes nothing about why we're here; my thoughts only give meaning to my life.
marieltrokan Posted June 18, 2016 Author Posted June 18, 2016 Thoughts don't have to be about changing something in order to have meaning; my point is that the thoughts of any life form are equal.
dimreepr Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 Thoughts don't have to be about changing something in order to have meaning. No argument here. my point is that the thoughts of any life form are equal. That’s demonstrably not true nor does it relate to the OP. 1
Velocity_Boy Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 Lee Harvey Oswald. Hayley Atwell. John Carpenter. Cleopatra. Masters and Johnson. Any internet user. Any mammal. Any species. Is any living being's thoughts the reason of existence? The closest I could come to agreeing with that question would be if you allowed me to slightly amend it. I could agree that, a life form's thoughts are a part of what comprises the meaning of life for that particular life form. Like Descartes said, you think so you are! But no, what you think about life of anything else does not affect my reality not my Existentialist thoughts and ideas.
marieltrokan Posted June 18, 2016 Author Posted June 18, 2016 But I'm referring to just the fact of thoughts, not what thoughts are comprised of. Were the thoughts of Lee Harvey Oswald, or Ava Gardner or a soldier in 17th century France the meaning of life, whatever they thought about throughout the whole course of their existence? Thoughts need external reality, and external reality isn't just one life form. So if reality isn't about protagonists, that has to then mean that any life form's thoughts are the reason of existence.
dimreepr Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) But I'm referring to just the fact of thoughts, not what thoughts are comprised of. Were the thoughts of Lee Harvey Oswald, or Ava Gardner or a soldier in 17th century France the meaning of life, whatever they thought about throughout the whole course of their existence? Thoughts need external reality, and external reality isn't just one life form. So if reality isn't about protagonists, that has to then mean that any life form's thoughts are the reason of existence. Reality is especially subjective, I suggest you read ‘Alice in wonderland’; no-one’s thoughts at present, or at any time, could possibly inform existence but they do provide a reason to exist. Edited June 19, 2016 by dimreepr
marieltrokan Posted June 19, 2016 Author Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) If thoughts are universal (as in my thought about whether Dracula Untold should be part of the Universal Monsters Universe can be Cristina Kirchner's thought, and Cleopatra's and Bill Gates), but thoughts don't create reality, it stands to reason that thoughts aren't the reason of existence (making the thoughts of any life form equal). Thoughts inform the existence of violence and war, therefore thoughts providing a reason to exist doesn't seem to be a valid definition of thoughts (even if they also inform housing rights, and access to free healthcare and food and education). Edited June 19, 2016 by marieltrokan
dimreepr Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 If thoughts are universal (as in my thought about whether Dracula Untold should be part of the Universal Monsters Universe can be Cristina Kirchner's thought, and Cleopatra's and Bill Gates), but thoughts don't create reality, it stands to reason that thoughts aren't the reason of existence (making the thoughts of any life form equal). Not all life forms are capable of thought ergo not equal. Thoughts inform the existence of violence and war, therefore thoughts providing a reason to exist doesn't seem to be a valid definition of thoughts (even if they also inform housing rights, and access to free healthcare and food and education). You’re right that’s not a valid definition of thought, so let’s use this one: the act of thinking about or considering something, anidea or opinion, or a set of ideas about a particular subject.
geordief Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) What is the meaning of "meaning"? (in this context) What is the meaning of "life" ? (it could be "a life" or "the collection of lives" etc) EDIT: What is the meaning of words anyway ?What is the relationship of words to reality? EDIT#2 Is it words that give meaning to human existence? Edited June 20, 2016 by geordief
geordief Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) I've answered this in posts # 2, 4 and 6. What do you "mean" ? Edited June 20, 2016 by geordief
dimreepr Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) Meaning, in this context, needs a reason; there’s no reason for life (it just happened) but there’s a reason to live; so meaning of life becomes meaning to life. Edited June 20, 2016 by dimreepr
StringJunky Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 Any thought's I, or any being, may have, changes nothing about why we're here; my thoughts only give meaning to my life. I agree. Nature is a blind watchmaker; it does not design, therefore, it's creations have no meaning extant to what cognitive beings make of it.
geordief Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 Meaning, in this context, needs a reason; there’s no reason for life (it just happened) but there’s a reason to live; there’s no “meaning of life”, there’s meaning to life. So "meaning" means "consequence" here? (amongst other things)
dimreepr Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 So "meaning" means "consequence" here? (amongst other things) How?
geordief Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 How? I was asking you. I am not claiming anything . I just want to know what people mean when they say things. But one of the meanings. (or implied meaning) of "meaning" is consequence, I think If a thing has a "meaning" then it has a purpose ,or some destination. "Meaning" can also be used in the sense of the "meaning of a word" but I don't think this is the sense that applies to the "meaning" of life
marieltrokan Posted June 20, 2016 Author Posted June 20, 2016 How can there be no reason for life? What evidence is there?
geordief Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 How can there be no reason for life? What evidence is there? How can you prove a negative?
StringJunky Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 How can there be no reason for life? What evidence is there? For there to be a reason there would have to be an intelligent creator who endows his creations with purpose. There is no evidence for this.
geordief Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 Why does there have to be one meaning of life ?Why can there not be a multitude? Why can these meanings not evolve with time?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now