The Meaning of Life

[elman]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, and say that letting the weak and starving to die is good. It rids the world of unfit humans. What is wrong with that?

You know it is wrong, and you know what is wrong with that. It is inate knowledge that you and I both have because we are human beings and if we do not have it, we are just animals, not human beings.

 

[Yggdrasil]

You know it is wrong, and you know what is wrong with that. It is inate knowledge that you and I both have because we are human beings and if we do not have it, we are just animals, not human beings.

I'm not talking about us. I'm just talking about the idea. Society would benefit.

 

[elman]

What does objectively good even mean? An uninterested good? What!? (Und Gott ist definitiv zu mir tot.)

A loving action is recognizable by you and a loving action such as helping someone in need is objectively good.

 

[elman]

I'm not talking about us. I'm just talking about the idea. Society would benefit.

No society does not benefit when we act as animals and not human beings.

 

[Yggdrasil]

No society does not benefit when we act as animals and not human beings.

It would. Population goes down, no special programs for the hungry to throw tax dollars at, only the strong would survive.

 

[JSynon]

Perhaps you should ask yourself- If there were no observers, would there be a Universe at all, and if IT is that Life has no meaning for you.. that's a problem no One can solve for you. Understanding cannot be given to another, Understanding can only be had by the Individual whom Understands.

Life does have meaning for me. I create it. Objective meaning is an oxymoron. Meaning needs a subject, a reference.

You know it is wrong, and you know what is wrong with that. It is inate knowledge that you and I both have because we are human beings and if we do not have it, we are just animals, not human beings.

The only reason you say that is because Christian morality is so ingrained into your blood. I don't see it as wrong because that word has no objective meaning to me. But again, though modern atheism has let go of God it can't seem to lose the morality that originated with God.

A loving action is recognizable by you and a loving action such as helping someone in need is objectively good.

How in the world is a loving action objectively good? Sure it might be good for all subjects, but that does not make it objectively good. Principle: Any time anybody states an objective truth they are really stating: "This is how I see it and how I want it!" Of course they don't realize this though.

No society does not benefit when we act as animals and not human beings.

This I would have to agree with, using your definition of animals. Much of Christian morality benefits society.

It would. Population goes down, no special programs for the hungry to throw tax dollars at, only the strong would survive.

And aristocracy would thrive again!

 

[elman]

It would. Population goes down, no special programs for the hungry to throw tax dollars at, only the strong would survive.

That is a description of a wolf pack, not human beings.

 

[JSynon]

That is a description of a wolf pack, not human beings.

Perhaps we should become animals. Oh! Truth: Becoming animals would be objectively good!

 

[Yggdrasil]

That is a description of a wolf pack, not human beings.

Human beings have done far worse than wolves, I promise you.


So anyways, I'm done going along with this thought. I'm just trying to show you a point.

 

[elman]

Life does have meaning for me. I create it. Objective meaning is an oxymoron. Meaning needs a subject, a reference.

If there is a loving Creator and we were created to become like our Creator, the objective meaning for us is in being loving, Not an oxymoron.

Quote:
You know it is wrong, and you know what is wrong with that. It is inate knowledge that you and I both have because we are human beings and if we do not have it, we are just animals, not human beings.

The only reason you say that is because Christian morality is so ingrained into your blood. I don't see it as wrong because that word has no objective meaning to me. But again, though modern atheism has let go of God it can't seem to lose the morality that originated with God.

The only reason you say that is you have the same ingrained knowledge as I and you don't want to admit it might be due to our being created that way.

Quote:
A loving action is recognizable by you and a loving action such as helping someone in need is objectively good.

How in the world is a loving action objectively good? Sure it might be good for all subjects, but that does not make it objectively good.

That seems to me to make it objectively good.

Principle: Any time anybody states an objective truth they are really stating: "This is how I see it and how I want it!" Of course they don't realize this though.

I realize that but I think the fact that we have knowledge that tells us when something is loving and good and it agrees with humans from all cultures and all times, that has some meaning.


Quote:
No society does not benefit when we act as animals and not human beings.

This I would have to agree with, using your definition of animals. Much of Christian morality benefits society.

Thank you.

 

[Mysticus]

The "truth" is that we are animals, primates to specific, and that humans have forgotten this fact is a major contributor to the problems occurring in the world today.

Human beings considering themselves to be separate and better than nature has been a cause for what I would consider to be sub-human behavior.

 

[elman]

Quote:
That is a description of a wolf pack, not human beings.

Perhaps we should become animals. Oh! Truth: Becoming animals would be objectively good!

It happens all the time when we are unloving and unconcerned about the needs of others. It is not objectively good. It is often objectively bad.

 

[Yggdrasil]

The "truth" is that we are animals, primates to specific, and that humans have forgotten this fact is a major contributor to the problems occurring in the world today.

Human beings considering themselves to be separate and better than nature has been a cause for what I would consider to be sub-human behavior.

I agree. I don't think we are special, just an advanced form of primate. Nothing wrong with that either, it often seems that humans have this sick obsession with wanted to feel special.

 

[elman]

The "truth" is that we are animals, primates to specific, and that humans have forgotten that fact is a major contributor to the problems occurring in the world today.

Being human or civilized as we sometime call it is being loving and not self centered and self focused, as is true of non humans who are animals and uncivilized. Being human is not the cause of our problems. Being animals is.

Human beings considering themselves to be separate and better than nature has been a cause for what I would consider to be sub-human behavior.

I would consider that sub-human behavior to be our failure to be humans which results in an automatic reversal to be simply animals.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
That is a description of a wolf pack, not human beings.

Human beings have done far worse than wolves, I promise you.

When they did they were acting lilke animals and not human beings.

So anyways, I'm done going along with this thought. I'm just trying to show you a point.

I was also trying to make a point.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
That is a description of a wolf pack, not human beings.

When they did they were acting lilke animals and not human beings.


I was also trying to make a point.

Humans are animals, and always act like animals, just more advanced sooooo.

 

[Mysticus]

Being human or civilized as we sometime call it is being loving and not self centered and self focused, as is true of non humans who are animals and uncivilized. Being human is not the cause of our problems. Being animals is.
I would consider that sub-human behavior to be our failure to be humans which results in an automatic reversal to be simply animals.

Selfless? How about a single ant within a colony of millions. What about the bees that work themselves to death to feed and protect the brood. Are these animals selfish?

 

[JSynon]

If there is a loving Creator and we were created to become like our Creator, the objective meaning for us is in being loving, Not an oxymoron.

Key phrase: "created to become like our Creator." In other words, His meaning for us. How is this not obvious? Anyone?

The only reason you say that is you have the same ingrained knowledge as I and you don't want to admit it might be due to our being created that way.

Maybe if you didn't call me a liar you would begin to understand my perspective...

That seems to me to make it objectively good.

Sorry, but objective does not mean the sum total of everything subjective.

Thank you.

Oh, of course. That's undeniable. The only problem is justifying the value of society.

 

[JSynon]

Being human or civilized as we sometime call it is being loving and not self centered and self focused, as is true of non humans who are animals and uncivilized. Being human is not the cause of our problems. Being animals is.

First, I must agree with the others that humans are indeed just another animal. If you want to say that our morality separates us and makes us objectively worth more than other species, then you have to justify the value of being civilized or human.

 

[elman]

I agree. I don't think we are special, just an advanced form of primate. Nothing wrong with that either, it often seems that humans have this sick obsession with wanted to feel special.

We are special. We are capable of being self aware and compasionate to the needs of other human beings and other animals.