The Meaning of Life

[MKS]

So what do some Leftist think the meaning or point of mans existence is. Now, Im not looking for what Marx, Che, Lenin, Luxembour etc etc think about the meaning of life. I am asking for your personal opinions, thoughts and ideas.

[LSD]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by the phrase.

Belief in some sort of externalistic "meaning of life" implies that there is something "above" or "behind" our physical existance which is obviously a-materialistic. There is no "plan" to humanity and thus there can be no grand unifying "purpose" to our lives.

But, on a personal level, one's "meaning" is whatever one wants it to be. Although I suppose, biologically speaking, all of our "purposes" is to reproduce. Luckily, of course, our brains are sufficiently advanced to override our biology most of the time.

I know that for a lot of people, that's a depressing thought, but personally, I find it rather encouraging. If there really were a "devine plan", we'd ultimately have no choice but to walk it.

If that plan did not meet with our approval, we'd have no option but to suffer. In a non-theistic world, however, we truly are able to explore all available choices, without having to worry about whether or not they meet with some "God's" favour.

If there really were a univeral "meaning" to life, it would be our social duty to defy it; to resist and refuse it with all we've got. No force has the right to impose itself upon our collective existance. Not "God", not "nature", and not "meaning".

We have the ability to rationally understand the universe. Because of that, we have a duty to use that ability to construct a society that maximizes wellfare. If you want to think of that as a sort of "meaning", I suppose you could.

But it stems out of our own pure social reality, not anything "greater" than that.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:44 AM
So what do some Leftist think the meaning or point of mans existence is. Now, Im not looking for what Marx, Che, Lenin, Luxembour etc etc think about the meaning of life. I am asking for your personal opinions, thoughts and ideas.
IMO life is the accident caused by a chain reaction in the universe.

[apathy maybe]

I tend to agree with the materialistic position. There is no meaning to life, the universe or anything. And that is that.

However, you are more then welcome to create your own meaning for anything including life and the universe.

And I personally will not shun any religious comrade, so long as they are not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. You can believe in any thing you like.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 14 2006, 07:41 PM
I tend to agree with the materialistic position. There is no meaning to life, the universe or anything. And that is that.

However, you are more then welcome to create your own meaning for anything including life and the universe.

And I personally will not shun any religious comrade, so long as they are not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. You can believe in any thing you like.
Yeah, I don't try to force people into atheism or anything I gave up on converting people to anything, so irritating to argue with people in real life.

[Pirate Utopian]

there is no meaning and happy so, now we can plan our own life

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The meaning of life is subjectivity itself.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The meaning of life comes from individual intepretations of external realities. One intepretation can be more correct than another, but that interpration can become invalid over time.

[Ricardo]

42

[Cryotank Screams]

To enjoy life to it's fullest; you only have one, then your ashes, so make the most of it.

[izquierda80]

Live for as long as life's worth living.

Each person arbitrarily defines and measures that worth, according to their own objective and subjetive perspectives of reality, which can constantly change over a person's life.

[RevMARKSman]

The Meaning of Life? I thought that was a Monty Python skit-thing. :unsure:

But like LSD said, there is no objective "meaning" to life. Intent is exclusive to the brain and thus cannot exist as a function of the entire universe.

[arielle]

The meaning of life. Hrm.


It's nice to have some belief, something to look forward to. A happy ending to every story. And it's always good to be ignorantly blissful in that matter, and that's what I believe. The meaning of life is simply this, to believe in tomorrow. And not tomorrow in the 24 hour sense but in tomorrow as in the future. To make the next day better than the last. To make our children live in a better place.

It may not have that much meaning to some, but that's what life is for me. :wub:

[The Rover]

The meaning of life is whatever you make it out to be

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 01:00 am
42
<_<

[MKS]

If there is no meaning to life, cant it be said that there is no value either. And if there is no value to life, if meaning and value are not absolutes than it all is mere persepective or "opinion" than why are Capitalists "bad" and Communists (Leftists) "good"?

What would be my or anyones incentive to strive or work for social or economic justice? If it is all meaningless, than why should there be concern?

[The Rover]

It&#39;s not meaningless. Just because everyone does not have a singular meaning to their life, does not mean that life is meaningless.

[MKS]

It&#39;s not meaningless. Just because everyone does not have a singular meaning to their life, does not mean that life is meaningless.

I was not asserting the truth; there is no meaning to life, I was asking a philosophical question.

If there is no meaning to life, cant it be said that there is no value either. And if there is no value to life, if meaning and value are not absolutes than it all is mere persepective or "opinion" than why are Capitalists "bad" and Communists (Leftists) "good"?

[The Rover]

It would be opinion. It already is, and always will be.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 08:46 pm

It&#39;s not meaningless. Just because everyone does not have a singular meaning to their life, does not mean that life is meaningless.

I was not asserting the truth; there is no meaning to life, I was asking a philosophical question.

If there is no meaning to life, cant it be said that there is no value either. And if there is no value to life, if meaning and value are not absolutes than it all is mere persepective or "opinion" than why are Capitalists "bad" and Communists (Leftists) "good"?
There is no absolute meaning of life. It&#39;s all subjectivity. Life is meaningless until you give it meaning.

There are also no absolute morals or values. Communists aren&#39;t "good", they are a necesity. Communism is the next main progression for human society, that is why I am a communist. Progress is inevitable and beneficial.

[MKS]

Communism is the next main progression for human society, that is why I am a communist

How do you know Communism is the next main progression of human society?

It is not that you know but that you believe. To assert Communism or any idealogy is fundamentaly a belief, a faith in something is never a knowledge of something. If you are so certain to call something that hasnt happened knoweledge than you could predict other future events.

[bezdomni]

Capitalism was a progression from feudalism. The only logical place for capitalism to go is socialism.

Historical Materialism "proves" communism. That is why Marxian Socialism is also referred to as "scientific socialism" (ie, not utopian socialism).

Engels explains this pretty well in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific".

[MKS]

Historical Materialism "proves" communism. That is why Marxian Socialism is also referred to as "scientific socialism" (ie, not utopian socialism).

You have not answered my question. How do you know that Communism is the natural progression of humanity? You yourself put the word "proves" in quotes, is it because you do know that nothing that has not happened cannot be truly known, it can be theorized scientifically or not, but it can never be truly known.

Marx, Engles, Luxembourg, Lenin, Trotsky, Bakunin, etc were not prophets they were theorists, they did not write absolutes or known truths
.



Communists aren&#39;t "good",

If Communists arent good than why do you seek to establish them?

[bezdomni]

You have not answered my question. How do you know that Communism is the natural progression of humanity? You yourself put the word "proves" in quotes, is it because you do know that nothing that has not happened cannot be truly known, it can be theorized scientifically or not, but it can never be truly known.
It makes more sense than anything else. That is why I think it.



Marx, Engles, Luxembourg, Lenin, Trotsky, Bakunin, etc were not prophets they were theorists, they did not write absolutes or known truths
Nobody is calling them prophets. However, their (minus Bakunin) work is very insightful and explains the inner workings of capitalism very well.

Einstein wasn&#39;t a "prophet", but he made scientific predictions about the nature of space-time that were eventually proven true.

Just because something hasn&#39;t "been proven yet" or "hasn&#39;t yet occured" doesn&#39;t mean it is inherently untrue.

[MKS]

Just because something hasn&#39;t "been proven yet" or "hasn&#39;t yet occured" doesn&#39;t mean it is inherently untrue

Yes it does. That is the definition of truth, a known occurrence or fact proven by substantial material evidence. You have to prove a truth, if you cannot it is not a truth. Some will argue that anything can be proved or disproved, that there is no 100% proven truth, there might be some merit to that argument. But for the sake of our discussion truth must be proven by the presentation of material evidence therefore a conjecture or theory can never be labeled as truth until it is materially proven.


It makes more sense than anything else. That is why I think it.

It makes more sense to you, but to Capitalists Capitalism makes more sense, which is right? Are Capitalists wrong or bad for thinking and acting the way they do? Who has the right to make such moral distinctions?


Einstein wasn&#39;t a "prophet", but he made scientific predictions about the nature of space-time that were eventually proven true.

He theorized and did some substantial scientific discoveries; however he always made the distinction between his theory and his discovery. Most socio-economic theorists to some extent "prophesied" about their ideologies, meaning they made conclusions or claims that were unfounded, merely hypothesis backed by optimistic idealism.

[EwokUtopia]

Hard question, in order to answer it you would need to answer "what is life?" or even more to the point "what is existance?" and in order to understand those questions, you would need to understand non-existance, which is something living human beings have a hard time grasping.

I believe, personally, that all things stem from the same thing, and end up in the same state. What that thing or state is, language could never come close to describing, Try to think of everything that ever has, does, or will exist, every view of everything, and wrap it up in a box of non-existance, and you begin to see my way of thinking. Nothing is everything. Everything is nothing. We cant imagine pure nothingness, non-existance, so how much of a perseption of existance can we have? In the end, all of the particles in the universe will disappear forever, and there will be a big black (though size and colour wont exist either) emptiness for googols and googols of years....or at least so we think now, but from that emptyness, perhaps something new and completely unexpected by anything will spring forth? We dont know what there was before existance came about (IE big bang, or the birth of the universe however you want to look at it), and we dont know exactly what will happen after it ens, it seems to spring from and return to nothing.
However it is not human to understand nothingness, there will be plenty of time for that after humanity ceases to exist. I believe that our lives as humans are quite simply to observe and immerse ourselves with the something that surrounds us. Ours is one world out of infinate possibilities (as we would well know if we werent limited to Sol&#39;s neighbourhood) and there is much....beauty could be the word...in our world for us to take in and rejoice. We should also remember that individually we are one out of 6.5 billion people who are essentially the exact same as us, IE same anatomy in two different but equal variants, same senses, same means of communication (with different codes), same perils and same needs. If one person is happy and 99 are miserable because the one person places his happiness and power over the rest, this is an absolute negation of any meaning to human life. Humans are many, and the greeds of the few are the evils of the many, so in order to have a meaningful race, life must be as best for as many people as absolutely possible. I also believe that humanity is invariably linked to itself...when I die, my experiances are thrown into the pot of collective humanity, and we go on. Death negates "I". If there is such a thing as the human soul, there is only one human soul and we are all a part. These are my takes on life and its meanings.


I&#39;m somewhat of a Nihilist and a Panthiest at the same time...figures.

[LSD]

If there is no meaning to life, cant it be said that there is no value either.

Value is irrelevent.

You&#39;re looking at life as if it has some sort of externalistic importance, as if it were more than a collection of active cellular processes. It isn&#39;t.

Human life is only important insofar as it defines human societal membership. And that is only important insofar as crafting human social policy. There is no "value" or "meaning" to "life" because "life" is nothing more than a biochemical reaction.

Murder isn&#39;t "wrong" because it "ends a life", it&#39;s socially undesirable because it harms an enfranchised member of said society. Outside of that society, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with ending a life, and, indeed, the natural world is predicated on the ending of life.

Our ecosystem is built upon predation and death. If life had implicit moral "value" then the natureal world itself would be "wrong" and "imoral". Therefore unless you acknowledge that "value of life" is mythical, you&#39;re left with an irreconcilable paradox.


And if there is no value to life, if meaning and value are not absolutes than it all is mere persepective or "opinion" than why are Capitalists "bad" and Communists (Leftists) "good"?

They&#39;re not.

"Good" and "bad" (from a moral perspective) are made up concepts. They don&#39;t really exist.

It&#39;s just that capitalists advocate social policies which would lead to more suffering and harm than those advocated by communists. That doesn&#39;t make them "bad", it just makes their ideas undesirable.

Society only exists to bennefit its members. Accordingly, any social policy which is not conducive to that end should not be adopted. "Morality" has absolutely nothing to do with it.