Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
Why not? People constantly seek to remove suffering, and to seek after peace/joy.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.
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.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.
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?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
Good. That was my point.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,
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".but when one arrives at non-existence, meaning has been fulfilled?
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).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"?
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.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).
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).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.
Sorry, but I don´t think that non-existence is in 3D. If non-existence has properties, it´s not non-existence.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".
A 3D object would be non-existent in the 2D world.Sorry, but I don´t think that non-existence is in 3D. If non-existence has properties, it´s not non-existence.
That´s just nonsense. It would exist in a 2D-world, it just wouldn´t be perceived in 3D.A 3D object would be non-existent in the 2D world.
I'm quite serious regarding my discussion, I'm sorry that you perceive it as "word games" ... take care.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.
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.I'm quite serious regarding my discussion, I'm sorry that you perceive it as "word games" ... take care.
How does "3D stuff exist" in a "2D world"?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).
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.So, for those who think that we are here by accident, does that mean that there is no meaning?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?