What IS the "meaning of life"? Does it differ person-to-person?

[Desolate]

Hi everyone, hopefully this subject will spark a bit of discussion among this thread. My question, which I'm sure many of you have as well, is: What is the "meaning of life"? Do you believe there is one? Does everyone have a different view? Feel free to add more information or opinions to your post, as long as it's relevant!

 

[assassinfred]

Meaning of life definitely varies from person to person. Everyone has different goals and different point of view, so I don't think it would be outrageous to say that the meaning of life varies.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

The meaning of life is beyond our comprehension as of now; we can barely and only grasp how to live, so asking of us to know why we breathe is like asking an infant to understand and explain Plato's philosophy. In my opinion, life has no meaning and I feel like stating Vian here: ''On se trouve toujours des excuses pour vivre.'' and roughly translated in English this becomes ''We always find excuses to live''. As for the ''goal'' of life, I would be a partisan of Aristotle's philosophy and say that it's to be happy.

 

[cantab]

The meaning of life is something that moves, metabolises, reproduces, etc etc...

But probably what the OP meant, and what is commonly meant by "the meaning of life", would be better described as the purpose of life.

There is no purpose imposed on life from "outside". Meaning the only purpose life can have is the purpose it creates for itself. This applies right down to the individual level. Every person makes their own purpose.

 

[Berserker]

It wouldn't be too farfetched to say that the meaning of life is entirely self-centered and conscious (in our case, human) based. Obviously, it's too much of a statement to say that life has a goal or that there's some puppeteer controlling the universe to give life a meaning. But if meaning stems from awareness and the question of meaning, one can say that all the random collisions, from a deterministic (yes it's a contradiction) viewpoint, were 'destined' to create this awareness. Even if there are multiple ways for consciousness to emerge, all the randomness was not originally created to birth awareness into existence, but is created to birth awareness into existence if the observer and its environment build feedback bouncing off from one another.

Again, all that was just what the previous posters said before, except stated in a different way. Perhaps there are only subjective meanings of life, but since the meaning of life, in itself, is subjective, the purpose for life to exist is to be subjective and selfish.

 

[Forbidden To Starve]

There is quite clearly no meaning of life. We're formed accidentally and we are destined to live an accidental life of which there is absolutely no purpose. Many of the concepts, ideas and goals that people live for would not have existed if society hadn't come around, so really you're basing your life goals on your communication with an extremely complicated world that deviates from the point of life and makes emotions, feelings and ideas confused and blurred.

Assigining a meaning to life is one of the many complications of the human mind.

 

[thisguy]

You're born, you live, you die. Do as much as you can whilst your here.

 

[avroillusion]

I remember reading up on geography that millions and billions of years from now, the Earth will be drastically different than it is currently. Most of the things we are familiar with will long be dead or destroyed. But I don't believe human existence is worthless just because we can't leave a testament to it. The general idea is that we should try to be good to ourselves and each other.

 

[Game Freak201]

Frankly, life has purpose since we give it purpose. Otherwise, it would all be meaningless. There are no actual beings other than ourselves telling us 'the meaning of life'. Some people may want to be charitable, others might want to be the biggest dick the world has ever known, other people may even wish to leave some sort of sign that they, at one point in time, existed in this world, and some people just couldn't care less about 'the meaning of life'.

 

[cantab]

I remember reading up on geography that millions and billions of years from now, the Earth will be drastically different than it is currently. Most of the things we are familiar with will long be dead or destroyed.

Depends how far ahead you go. A million years from now humanity may well be extinct. There won't be many remains in terms of buildings and so on. In fact nowadays we tend to build more fragile; stuff like the Pyramids and Stonehenge will probably outlast anything built since the Industrial Revolution.

There are a few candidates for the longest lasting sign of human activity. Space probes are one, but even they'll be eroded by micrometeorites in time. The fossil record will show a mass extinction event. Geological indicators may also show a climate event, but the climate records tend to be in the ocean and so get subducted.

Perhaps the longest lasting sign of our presence, however, will be from nuclear power. The Oklo natural nuclear reactor was active two billion years ago, and we can still measure the isotopic differences that prove the reactions took place. The same may be possible with our spent nuclear fuel in another two billion years, especially as we're likely to bury it somewhere geologically stable.

 

[JRank]

The meaning of life is for me, to worship God. To those who say the world is accidental, think about this: When you walk into a building, do you think, "What accident made this?" No, you don't think that, you know someone put time and effort into building it. Do you think something just went boom and made everything around us? No way! Someone had to have designed this world because people are way to complicated for us to be an accident.

 

[cantab]

Someone had to have designed this world because people are way to complicated for us to be an accident.

And what designed God?

 

[JRank]

And what designed God?

Nothing. God has been around since the beginning of time, and even before then. He is timeless.

 

[cantab]

Nothing. God has been around since the beginning of time, and even before then. He is timeless.

Then why can't the Universe just be? You argue the complexity of the Universe (or of features in it) requires a creator, but surely that creator is necessarily complex.

Ultimately, everyone has to believe that there is something that exists without a cause. You believe that something is God. I believe it is the Universe.

Now which of these positions is "correct" is unimportant for this thread. The point is that the complexity of the Universe is not a valid argument for the existence of God.

 

[Forbidden To Starve]

Frankly, life has purpose since we give it purpose. Otherwise, it would all be meaningless. There are no actual beings other than ourselves telling us 'the meaning of life'. Some people may want to be charitable, others might want to be the biggest dick the world has ever known, other people may even wish to leave some sort of sign that they, at one point in time, existed in this world, and some people just couldn't care less about 'the meaning of life'.

Yes, we give life a purpose because the discombobulating society of today offers no actual direction but it doesn't mean that life has a purpose or you're necessarily fulfilling any kind of purpose by doing the things that you've invented should be part of le but.

Whilst we're at it, the belief in God is a delusion. Yes, something created the universe but why on earth do you assume it's something that we can personify? It's completely stupid and half-arsed and I suggest you study basic biology. No, all you'll do is say the things that a spokesman of your religion would say that infact make no sense. They're part of a fiction story which Game Freak have already proven can easily be fabricated (I'm referring of course to the theological story which encompasses the person above me's avatar)

If a God did exist, why would he create the world just so we could worship him? He seems like kind of an ass.

 

[Testing...]

Yes, we give life a purpose because the discombobulating society of today offers no actual direction but it doesn't mean that life has a purpose or you're necessarily fulfilling any kind of purpose by doing the things that you've invented should be part of le but.

Whilst we're at it, the belief in God is a delusion. Yes, something created the universe but why on earth do you assume it's something that we can personify? It's completely stupid and half-arsed and I suggest you study basic biology. No, all you'll do is say the things that a spokesman of your religion would say that infact make no sense. They're part of a fiction story which Game Freak have already proven can easily be fabricated (I'm referring of course to the theological story which encompasses the person above me's avatar)

If a God did exist, why would he create the world just so we could worship him? He seems like kind of an ass.

While I dont think the Christian God exists I am open to the possibility of a God. Though maybe he is "an ass" like you put it, although in that way the world would still make sense, as opposed Christians trying to defend their omni-benevolent God with all the bad things that happen. Secondly nothing had to necessarily create the universe, its most likely that it always existed just not in its present state of course. Maybe there was something before the universe, but once you get to a certain point you just have to accept that there was something that's simply always been there.

On topic, purpose is subjective so it has to vary from person to person. God whether he exists or not doesnt have a purpose as far as I know, and if he wouldnt need one I think I'd be fine without one too

 

[Desolate]

This has been quite a discussion thread, and I see it turning into a religious-discussing thread. I just wanted to update with my view. I, personally, am Agnostic, borderlining atheism. I, to an extent, believe there may be a God, however, it doesn't control fate or destiny; it simply governs the scientific laws of the universe, however I myself am uneasy about my take on things. As for the meaning of life, I normally believe in self-enlightenment as a strive.

 

[Morm]

There is no meaning because meaning implies that it was created with reason and purpose and that would necessitate a deliberate decision to make both life and a meaning for it, meaning a deity is required. Since there is no evidence in support of a Deity, any kind of deliberate action in the creation of life, any rationale or purpose behind life, the hypothesis of a meaning for life must be rejected.

 

[FlareBlitz]

Surprised no one made a Hitchhiker's Guide reference yet.

The meaning of life is to enjoy yourself and try not to hurt other people before slipping off to oblivion after 80 years or so.

 

[Cartoons!]

Seriously, can someone not mention God without three guys in a row jumping on him with some snide one liner?

As far as it differing from person to person, I guess it depends how you're defining 'meaning of life'? Everyone will ascribe to themselves their own personal aspirations and goals, which may or may not be distinct from the 'bigger meaning', whether you see that as God, your genes, or the will of the million bacterial organisms of which you are formed.

I guess there's nihilism too, which doesn't seem to offer much to anyone.

 

[Mike B]

The meaning of life is anything that can be decided upon a conscious decision.

 

[popemobile]

Seriously, can someone not mention God without three guys in a row jumping on him with some snide one liner?

it wasn't so much he mentioned god but he also called out all atheists on top of that

so

there's that I guess

 

[Desolate]

The meaning of life is to find an answer to that question.

Oh, ad infinitum. :)

As for religion, I just believe that occasionally, people use it to shadow, guard, enforce, etc, their beliefs, which in turn may be the beliefs of the aforementioned, per se. As for myself, I adopt my own path, thus being empirical, without religious influence, for the most part.

 

[Berserker]

While we're on this topic of subjectivity, take a look at this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-the-past-exist-yet-e_b_683103.html?view=print

To me, the guy really isn't stating anything new, and is just revamping the ideas of past philosophers. He's also making blank, and also controversial (keep in mind he's not a physicist), statements, but that's a given whenever you're proposing something "new". However, so far some people have said that this theory could be groundbreaking. What do you think?

(Also, it seems most supporters of this idea are in the field of biology, while those who oppose it are mostly physicists.)

 

[cantab]

The problem with the idea that our observations determine what happens in the Universe is that our observations are themselves part of the Universe. The arguments seem to imagine a separation between observer and experiment, which goes against quantum mechanics.

In any case, we know quantum mechanics is not exactly correct. It breaks down under certain situations and it's inconsistent with general relativity. With that in mind, I think making philosophical conclusions based on quantum theory is dubious.