What is the meaning behind existence, in your view?

[Eudaimonist]

Well, sure you can, but it isn't a valid comparison. You are attempting to define God with a derogatory man-made term, suggesting that there is something derogatory about God. God created us for His good pleasure. That's it. He takes joy in us.. well, at least those who are in His Son.

I was asking you if God was a hedonist. I wasn't offering my own description of God.

You haven't convinced me that I was wrong to ask that question. Again, you say that he created us for his "good pleasure". If that was God's only motivation, how is that not hedonistic?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JustHisKid]

I was asking you if God was a hedonist. I wasn't offering my own description of God

I see. I don't define God by terminology that only applies to humans.

You haven't convinced me that I was wrong to ask that question.

I was not attempting to convince you of anything.

Again, you say that he created us for his "good pleasure". If that was God's only motivation, how is that not hedonistic?

See above

 

[ananda]

Typically, yes. That's not the same thing as seeking permanent joy, though.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Why not? People constantly seek to remove suffering, and to seek after peace/joy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why not? People constantly seek to remove suffering, and to seek after peace/joy.

Yeah, so?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ananda]

Yeah, so?


eudaimonia,

Mark

In that sense, I think most people are seeking after permanent joy/peace. They work actively to get rid of suffering, and to embrace joy/peace.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In that sense, I think most people are seeking after permanent joy/peace. They work actively to get rid of suffering, and to embrace joy/peace.

I think that people seek to restore joy/peace when it is lost, but that isn't the same thing as having the expectation of permanent joy/peace.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ananda]

I think that people seek to restore joy/peace when it is lost, but that isn't the same thing as having the expectation of permanent joy/peace.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Wouldn't people jump at the chance to dwell in permanent joy and peace, instead of vacillating between suffering and joy/peace, with all other things considered?

 

[quatona]

A person may possess a desire to travel to location "A". When he arrives at location "A", he no longer possesses that desire.

So, perhaps in the same way, meaning requires existence,

Good. That was my point.

but when one arrives at non-existence, meaning has been fulfilled?

Hmm, firstly I´m wondering why you are focussing now on the meaning of non-existence when actually you asked (and I answered) about "the meaning behind existence".
Secondly, nobody "arrives at non-existence" - because at that point he isn´t around anymore to arrive anywhere.
And finally, I have never heard the term "fulfilled meaning". Did you make that up spontaneously? And what it is supposed to communicate, beyond trying to make an absurd idea sound deep?
Desires can be fulfilled, hopes can be fulfilled, wishes can be fulfilled, expectations, goals, fears - but "fulfilled meaning"?

 

[ananda]

Good. That was my point.

Hmm, firstly I´m wondering why you are focussing now on the meaning of non-existence when actually you asked (and I answered) about "the meaning behind existence".
Secondly, nobody "arrives at non-existence" - because at that point he isn´t around anymore to arrive anywhere.
And finally, I have never heard the term "fulfilled meaning". Did you make that up spontaneously? And what it is supposed to communicate, beyond trying to make an absurd idea sound deep?
Desires can be fulfilled, hopes can be fulfilled, wishes can be fulfilled, expectations, goals, fears - but "fulfilled meaning"?

When I say "meaning has been fulfilled," it just means that the need for meaning no longer exists, once one arrives at non-existence (e.g. nibbana/nirvana).

 

[quatona]

When I say "meaning has been fulfilled," it just means that the need for meaning no longer exists, once one arrives at non-existence (e.g. nibbana/nirvana).

Exactly my point (even though I still find the wording "fulfilled meaning" questionable). In non-existence, there can´t be meaning. Thus, there can´t be meaning to, of or behind existence. The term "meaning" is meaningful only within the frame of existence.
On another note, even if Buddhists strive for non-existence, they don´t strive for it because non-existence is meaningful - in my understanding they value it for the lack of meaning.

 

[ananda]

Exactly my point (even though I still find the wording "fulfilled meaning" questionable). In non-existence, there can´t be meaning. Thus, there can´t be meaning to, of or behind existence. The term "meaning" is meaningful only within the frame of existence.
On another note, even if Buddhists strive for non-existence, they don´t strive for it because non-existence is meaningful - in my understanding they value it for the lack of meaning.

On one level, yes, nirvana has a lack of meaning (in context of our current existence). On another level, nirvana possesses its own meaning (which has no meaning in this context).

It's as if we had a 2D entity which rises into the 3D world. The 3D world has no meaning in terms of the 2D world, but the 3D world possesses its own meaning in and of itself. This is how (IMO) nirvana is explained as "non-existence and not non-existence".

 

[quatona]

On one level, yes, nirvana has a lack of meaning (in context of our current existence). On another level, nirvana possesses its own meaning (which has no meaning in this context).

It's as if we had a 2D entity which rises into the 3D world. The 3D world has no meaning in terms of the 2D world, but the 3D world possesses its own meaning in and of itself. This is how (IMO) nirvana is explained as "non-existence and not non-existence".

Sorry, but I don´t think that non-existence is in 3D. If non-existence has properties, it´s not non-existence.

 

[ananda]

Sorry, but I don´t think that non-existence is in 3D. If non-existence has properties, it´s not non-existence.

A 3D object would be non-existent in the 2D world.

 

[quatona]

A 3D object would be non-existent in the 2D world.

That´s just nonsense. It would exist in a 2D-world, it just wouldn´t be perceived in 3D.
Anyway, if you start telling me that non-existence is actually existence, I think I am bowing out of this discussion. I´m not into that kind of word games.
And once you are willing to get back to your original question, the "meaning behind existence" isn´t found in that "3D-world" you are hypothetizing - simply because you are postulating that this 3D-world exists. Thus, meaning is inevitably found within the frame of reference of existence.

 

[ananda]

That´s just nonsense. It would exist in a 2D-world, it just wouldn´t be perceived in 3D.
Anyway, if you start telling me that non-existence is actually existence, I think I am bowing out of this discussion. I´m not into that kind of word games.
And once you are willing to get back to your original question, the "meaning behind existence" isn´t found in that "3D-world" you are hypothetizing - simply because you are postulating that this 3D-world exists. Thus, meaning is inevitably found within the frame of reference of existence.

I'm quite serious regarding my discussion, I'm sorry that you perceive it as "word games" ... take care.

 

[quatona]

I'm quite serious regarding my discussion, I'm sorry that you perceive it as "word games" ... take care.

Sorry for my impatience. I´m sure you are serious. I´m not insinuating malevolent intentions or something. Maybe you even have a valid point but you aren´t communicating it too well.
Look, here´s an example:
First you tell me that non-existence has a meaning for Buddhists.
Then you compare this non-existence to a 3D-world which "has no meaning in our 2D world".
(the very opposite of what you´ve stated before)
Next you redefine "non-existence" to "existing (in a 3D-world), but not existing in our 2D-world" (which even wouldn´t be accurate - 3D-stuff exists in a 2D world quite fine).

Anyway, what I find most frustrating: You asked about the "meaning behind existence", and upon my response, you change the topic to the "meaning of non-existence from the Buddhist view point".

So maybe it the discussion would be more productive if you´d simply state your opinion and worldview instead of asking questions just to ignore the point of the responses? Or you could define "existence" for purposes of your question beforehand?

So I reiterate my response: Meaning can only exist within the framework of existence, because if nothing exist there can´t be any meaning to anything, and it can´t be ascribed by anyone (because nothing and no-one exists). And for purposes of this response I am contrasting existence to non-existence (as opposed to a hypothetical more-dimensional existence or whatever parallel- or super-existence, which - if they exist - are in existence).

 

[ananda]

I´m sure you are serious. I´m not insinuating malevolent intentions or something. Maybe you even have a valid point but you aren´t communicating it too well.
Look, here´s an example:
First you tell me that non-existence has a meaning for Buddhists.
Then you compare this non-existence to a 3world which "has no meaning in our 2D world".
Next you redefine "non-existence" to "existing (in a 3D-world), but not existing in our 2D-world" (which even wouldn´t be accurate - 3D-stuff exists quite fine in a 2D world).

Anyway, what I find most frustrating: You asked about the "meaning behind existence", and upon my response, you change the topic to the "meaning of non-existence from the Buddhist view point".

So maybe it the discussion would be more productive, if you´d simply state your opinion and worldview instead of asking questions just to ignore the point of the responses? Or you could define "existence" for purposes of your question beforehand?

So I reiterate my response: Meaning can only exist within the framework of existence, because if nothing exist there can´t be any meaning to anything, and it can´t be ascribed by anyone (because nothing and no-one exists). And for purposes of this response I am contrasting existence to non-existence (as opposed to a hypothetical more-dimensional existence or whatever parallel existence, which - if they exist - are in existence).

How does "3D stuff exist" in a "2D world"?

My thread is not limited to my OP, I like to explore where various trains of thoughts might take me - I'm sorry if that's not your preference.

 

[cineplus]

Here's the meaning of life:
When 1/3 of the angels leaved, following Lucifer, YWHW realized that their mistake was due to a lack of experience too. No angel had a clue about living far from God's light.
So YWHW had an idea. To create a new living specie that would pass trough a "vaccine", in order to make them aware of the dangers of living far from God.
So YWHW put Adam and Eve in the principate of the Evil. He put the fruit in the middle of the Eden because Adam and Eve would have eaten it and entered the program of God: knowing the difference between living in the light, and living in the darkness, but without having to live in the Hell. That's why our life is a vaccine. We can taste the hell, but still be in God's kingdom.
When we will die and go to Heaven, we will remember what does it mean to be far from God, and we will appreciate his kingdom more. Nobody will ever want to leave the light, because we will know that without His light we would die.

 

[FullEnglishBrekkie]

So, for those who think that we are here by accident, does that mean that there is no meaning?

For those who think we are here by accident, fortuitous or otherwise, there is no pre-planned reason for our existence. Now that we are here, though, we may, if we so choose, design or divine or otherwise define a purpose for our lives. Some may make worship of their God their purpose, some may make service to their fellow men or animals their purpose, some may choose a self-serving path, some may find other goals for themselves.

Some dyed in the wool Darwinists may say that their purpose is to ensure the survival of their genes for the survival of their species.

Any purpose that each life has is a purpose that comes after that life starts except, arguably, for the evolutionary purpose.

 

[Presbanglicist]

I like the Buddhist therefore not Christian's answer, rather bating on "leaning on your own understanding".