Wait, where do I recognise her from, I’m sure I’ve seen her face before
Somewhere in your area is a doorway. Please walk through that, and do not return. Thank you.
asking for a friend I see
The meaning of life is very simple: life has no meaning unless you create meaning. What that meaning is is going to differ from person to person.
The meaning I give to my life is to do everything I can to further human knowledge and to learn as much as possible myself.
For other people, it could be exploring the world, finding inner peace, helping as many people as possible, gaining power/money by any means necessary, etc.
All valid, some more well-intentioned than others. IMO if your goal is to do good by yourself and/or to others without actively seeking to hurt others, there isn’t really a wrong answer.
This was just meant to be something funny to make people chuckle and then continue on with their day. I find my meaning in being an existential jester. To laugh at everything. May I be from joy or mockery or grim determination. So much so that I’ve told my wife that if she feels the need to give me a memorial plaque after my death it can only have one of two quotes on it. The first is attributed to Shakespeare’s Marc Anthony: “Have I played the part well? Then applaud, as I exit.” Or from Darkest Dungeon: “He will be laughing still, in the end.”
yes. agreed. also, ugh. i’ll guarantee you whoever downvoted your post is some fucking theist.
but yes. 100% agreed. and once people realize this, it comes with the understanding that there is no objectively true answer. to each their own.
BUT, here’s where we get into the freewill part of giving individual meaning to life - if you decide that your meaning is to extract your own pleasure at the misfortune of others, then i am going to decide to end your life. AND… when enough people join together to stop those that would create suffering for others, that’s when humanity is on its way to my version of a glorious moral union. a moral union not based on some book of ancient goat herders but on a democratic agreement about what we want the world to be like.
yes. agreed. also, ugh. i’ll guarantee you whoever downvoted your post is some fucking theist.
Nah, just a pretentious person who’s calling other people pretentious because they don’t like who they are as a person and they take it out on others who do. No need to feed the troll.
The last point is just the paradox of tolerance. I don’t tolerate intolerance, although I am also a strictly non-violent person except for self defense. What does work is public pressure/shame, and imprisonment in the case that they commit crimes.
Public shame doesn’t work. And sometimes there aren’t any laws. I’m not sure public pressure works either. The us is an example.
The Nazis were buried underground since the end of WWII until Gamergate due to the fact that being a Nazi was viewed as unacceptable in society.
life still has no meaning. life is absurd.
Exactly. If there is a reason for our conscious existence, it is to observe and imbue with meaning. Otherwise the world just is.
Here is to existential nihilism. That one set me free because it’s not centered on obligation toward other people aka living my false self. My meaning is inner peace by self actualization.
You’re what an internet turtle philosopher describe as “the pretentious dude at a party who thinks he’s got everything figured out. Really now? You figured out the meaning of life and you’re certain of it?”
Okay, then why do you care about human knowledge and want to learn as much as possible? What about the application of that knowledge?
Do you care about knowledge or wisdom?
To what end do you apply that knowledge?
To what ends will you acquire that knowledge?
Mascara?
Physicists: the meaning of life is to increase entropy. Global warming let’sssss goooll
That’s the meaning of the universe and everything, not specifically life. Easy mistake to make.
It’s not meaning. It’s just a mechanism. It’s the canvas to what we do and ascribe meaning to.
Then again, our “meaning” might simply be a mechanism to another system
Oh lol that one on the left is the meme where xianxia fighters explain their move in the middle of battle.
TIL that we evolved opposable thumbs for feeding our loved ones
Hungry for thumbs
At uni the biologist parties were always the ones with the most sex. So that checks out.
The least sex was electrical or mechanical engineering. Just the couple of ay dudes had some fun.
Weirdest sex was for sure psychology student parties.
Agreed. I was at a party and I got blackout drunk and regained my awareness as I was sitting on a log barfing. To my right is a psychology student holding my shoulders and stroking my hair. She then walks me home, invites herself in, empties the entire contents of her purse in my shared living room, then takes me back to my room and rides me for an undisclosed amount of time.
Psychology student sex was weird that one time.
I used to live with a biology student who would constantly have house parties. Those parties weren’t the most sex-filled ones I’ve ever been to but they absolutely attracted the wealthiest party goers.
And there was me, who entrapped himself in a terrible relationship and had neither sex nor fun
Comp sci?
NaN
LAN parties.
Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more…
What is love?
Philosophers tend to avoid that question and argue about extremely niche things like Ship of Theseus problems.
Lol what are you on about. There is an entire body of active philosophical work about the meaning of life: https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_ylo=2024&q=meaning+of+life+philosophy&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
My impression of it being like that is largely due to the split between analytic and continental philosophy. Anglophone universities tend to focus on the former and then the latter has a larger body of work from mainland Europe; the many French existentialist philosophers would be a good example.
Well the sciences keeps taking all those peksy answerable questions, and religion stole half the remaining ones and is half way across town by now.
Philosophy is just left holding the bag of all the quibbly things noone is interested in or dont have answers on purpous.
Philosophy of science was big when I was still studying it. Stuff like whether the Linean System of classifying species were still fit for purpose or the gaps in our knowledge that modern physics leave.
That’s what makes philosophy interesting.
I am on my seventh Ship of Thesus, my D: contains /DOSGAMES/ and has a “folder created date” of August 1996.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s the same ship because I can load up my original SAVEGAMES, they still work, and they can kiss my ass. My ship has gone through the swamp man paradox and emerged the same on the other side. :>
I’m surprised the updates worked that far
Source: pop philosophy?
I’ve got two philosophy degrees, an undergrad and a masters.
Then I stand corrected!
Bust a nut, pass your genetics and perish. Thats it. What you do in between that is up to you.
No, social behavior has always been a party of biology. Even after you reproduce how you care for your young and your extended family has a huge impact on the species. Herd animals or anything that flocks can’t function solo. If all the adults just left after they reproduced the species wouldn’t survive. Reproduction is key for the individual, but it’s never that simple. The version you’re told in school is always a highly simplified version of the truth.
We did evolve grandmother’s. That was an evolutionary pressure response. Deep knowledge and long growth have lead us through doors of perception far beyond the reach of all life we have yet precieved.
We did evolve grandmother’s.
Grandmother’s what? What’s implied by the “'s” after “grandmother”?
Apple pie.
The entire purpose of life and evolution up to this point was to evolve grandmother’s apple pie.
Tangential nitpick—the phrase “evolutionary pressure response” evokes the idea that there is an intelligent or benevolent purpose behind the process. When a beneficial trait randomly occurs and gets passed on, that is a release from evolutionary pressure, not a response to it.
Honestly the entire idea that the only purpose of humanity is to make the next generation or support that process in some way just feels gross in a very eugenics adjacent way. If you start with that premise, it’s just too easy to conclude that anyone who isn’t working towards that end is disposable.
I’m in the “there is no purpose,” camp. It seems like a bit of a mental disorder to me to (without any evidence) assume that oneself or one’s species isn’t just hanging around by random happenstance. Wouldn’t that simply be narcissism? People have long asked the question, “why are we here?” Yet there’s never been and never will be a definitive answer.
Evolution is just natural eugenics.
Yes, but also it’s more complicated than that. Most species die off before being grandparents, and certianly they don’t participate in the rearing of grandchildren. We specifically live long enough and have emotional connection to keep being part of a family structure past that point. It helps retain and pass on knowledge that proved valuable for us. Likewise, younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual, and it’s hypothesized this was to build redundancy into family structures. If both parents die off in a hunting accident, you have a gay aunt/uncle who can step in; much better than being an orphan.
Yes reproduction is the GOAL as far as evolution is concerened, but contributing does not require direct participation.
Is it though? Because evolution is only really concerned with a thing living long enough to reproduce. It’s not planned like eugenics would be.
That’s why there’s tons of examples of dumb as hell stuff in biology because as long as an organism is “good enough” to keep reproducing and spreading their genes that is fine and that species will continue to evolve.
Eugenics would be more like if evolution somehow could select only for specific traits and then made sure to only let things with those traits reproduce. Evolution is much messier than that.
Not just humanity. That is the purpose of all living things, insofar as we can be said to have a purpose at all.
No, it’s not purpose. It’s just a process that perpetuates itself.
It’s how you make the next generation, but if that generation doesn’t have a purpose, then neither does yours, nor the act of reproduction.
From a biological point of view everybody is disposable
deleted by creator
…well in the long view, that’s how we got here and eventually that’s all that matters: it’s a bit nihilistic but that’s the essence of nature in the cosmos…
How about I do something which will make life better for people who are actually alive already instead of increasing total human suffering by making new people.
Having kids can be extremely fulfilling, doesn’t increase human suffering at all. Having kids subjectively improved my life and the lives of many people adjacent to me, e.g. the lives of my family members and friends and my kids’ friends.
I don’t understand how the Internet is so anti kids, it’s pretty baffling.
Virtually every sentient life experiences a non-zero amount of suffering. Progeny that doesn’t exist categorically doesn’t suffer; progeny that does exist is virtually certain to suffer to some degree. The hedonist argument that progeny may get to experience some joy falls apart because progeny that doesn’t exist categorically doesn’t experience any lack of joy (i.e. that would-be joy is not mourned by that which does not exist).
Ensuring the certainty of the sum total of suffering in another person’s life just for one’s own self-fulfillment is incredibly selfish. Procreation is a cycle of blithe selfishness that perpetuates universal suffering and is at best wrought by apathy for others’ suffering and at worst wrought by enthusiasm for others’ suffering.
I’m anti-kid because I didn’t consent to the sentience that I have experienced and I have the empathy to want others not to suffer.
Sure, life is imperfect, but is that really a reason to espouse something as radical as nonexistence? I find that the imperfection and thereby dualism of existence is part of what makes it beautiful; we get to experience both the good and the bad, pleasure and pain.
I guess in some sense what I understand you’re saying is that to you, being thrust into the pain inherent of becoming and being alive, is the consequence of a bad moral or ethical (selfish) action and therefore wrong even if the children are able to adapt, because there is always more potential suffering throughout the course of a life. I get that, I think most of us would love to be in situations where we could have no-suffering-guarantees for our children.
Maybe the point of friction is that it seems to me like you believe that there should be no suffering at all for it to be ethically permissible to have children (lest it be selfish) while many of us believe that the “base level” of suffering inherent to life (eg. death of parents, the setbacks of infancy, social interaction, etc.) is permissible, and it then falls on us as parents to make sure that there is no or as little additional or unnecessary suffering as possible by means of safe environment, education and tools to cope and overcome so that what could potentially be suffering doesn’t become so. When it comes to that I believe it to be more reasonable to discuss who ought and who oughtn’t be a parent than whether it’s ethical or not to have kids.
When it comes to that I believe it to be more reasonable to discuss who ought and who oughtn’t be a parent than whether it’s ethical or not to have kids.
Eugenics is not going to reduce suffering in the world.
I’m anti-kid because I didn’t consent to the sentience that I have experienced and I have the empathy to want others not to suffer.
Maybe you should find the empathy to see that your experience is not everyone’s experience, then?
Refer to the first sentence of my comment.
Non 0 amount of suffering is a meaningless statement.
I don’t understand how the Internet is so anti kids, it’s pretty baffling.
Because people who are chronically online are chronically online because they had shitty childhoods which gave them chronic depression. Thus they associate the creation of children with the creation of suffering.
Source: me
Come on, it’s worth it but it certainly brings a lot of suffering that wouldn’t exist otherwise. Telling my teenager that he needs to shower 5x, every day that he does sports, is suffering for both me and him.
Human suffering is caused in part by overpopulation (as is the suffering of all creatures - we are invasive, destructive and afflicted with a superiority complex) and in part by religious indoctrination, so while you procreate, as long as you don’t force offspring into a single and restrictive belief system, I suppose it’s okay, and all the best to you.
You say it’s improved your life and the lives of those adjacent to you, your family members, friends, and your kids’ friends. But you haven’t said its improved your kids life. I think that’s what the OP was talking about. A being who doesn’t exist doesn’t desire to exist so making new life isn’t doing them a favor and only exposes them to harm.
Don’t project your own depression onto others, and non-existent beings.
If you think existence “only exposes [living things] to harm” and nothing else, nothing even potentially good?
If you truly believe that, I’ve got no nice way to say this: You need therapy.
I mean I’m not depressed and I love living, so I wouldn’t be projecting depression on to others.
I agree that people can experience good things as well as harmful things, but it’s not a risk worth taking. Giving birth is gambling with human life. You never know if someones life experience is going to be overwhelmingly positive or negative, but if they are never born, that’s not even an issue to worry about.
That’s the philosophy group to the left
If reincarnation were real, I’d hope that people who think the meaning of life entails procreation end up getting stuck as mayflies forever
Sorry, blah blah research purpose.
So who is that on the right
Someone about to be strangled by a ghost’s hand.
Saved this for later
No clue. Saved it to my meme folder back when I was on Reddit and decided to put it up here to keep the community going.
Thank you for your service
Ok, so who’s that on the left?
The skeleton? Well, that would be me. I am a bit underweight.
Seconding, source (NSFW) is an onlyfans post on 2022-05-24 titled wish it was u? ;D
Personally I feel like it is a dumb question. Life gives you meaning. By that I mean life enables the creation of symbolic truths. And what enables life is a different question.
Funny enough, without life, your statement has no meaning.
with life is still has no meaning
Objectively: It’s entropy, life is part of the process for dismantling the universe.
Subjectively: It’s whatever you like. Personally I find a lot of comfort in the objective view.
Pretty much.
