Jump to content

The Meaning of Life


Akuji

Recommended Posts

well not really the point of this particular discussion but whilst we're on the subject...When we die that's pretty much it so far as I'm concerned. Maybe in some circumstances some part of us remains after death but in the overwhelming majority of instances death is the end of the line. In case you're wondering what I mean by "perhaps some part of us remains" I've made no secret of the fact I believe in the paranormal so that would be a ghost of our former self. As I have also mentioned however this is extremely rare at least in my experience and there are few abnormal events which can't be explained rationally before leaping to the conclusion that it must be something paranormal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Re: Why do we exist?

My understanding is that we exist that we may better ourselves through comprehending and freely obeying the will of God.
To what end? To return to God from earth? Why create earth in the first place then? Is it just to send out a number of souls and see who returns? Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that would be a purpose of existance from a theological perspective and not the cause of existance. This thread poses the question "why do we exist?" which must mean "what is the chain of events which led to the existance of homo sapien' date=' or more commonly, the human race?"[/quote'] The word 'why' suggests purpose to me, but fair enough. As it stands now I think God correctly arranged proteins into the kind of information necessary to support life. After that he then placed a soul into the body of a sapien-type animal and made it such that a new soul is created within a new life form when these sapiens reproduce. Funny you should mention that, I've been mulling over the same question for the last month or so, with regards to the whole 'ultimate good in and of itself' concept from Aristotle. I suspect the only reason God would create an earth with the promise of heaven is so that we could feel the joy of fulfillment - that is to say, being fulfilled by knowing that selflessness is its own reward. As I understand it heaven is experiencing joy. One enjoys what one beholds rather than what one is, and one of those joys is seeing loved ones. Thus my guess would be that heaven serves as a place of both selflessness and individuality, before God, for eternity. Our lives are designed to help us understand that. This is a bit of a spitball analysis just now though. I have a couple of other ideas relating to humility and the supremacy of God, but I'll only bring those up if necessary. Looks to be a good thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iceni, I don't think you're giving the other animals enough credit. No joke. Something that's come up again and again in my conversations with Christians is this idea that they don't "have souls" and that we're somehow above them because of it. I hear phrases like "animals were put here for our use" and "dominion over the beasts". Of course I don't have a place for either the soul or the afterlife in my worldview, but - if we get them, why not other hominids? Why not our companion animals? Why not unrelated species that show signs of intelligence, comprehension, capacity for a range of emotions? Why draw that line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iceni, I don't think you're giving the other animals enough credit. No joke. Something that's come up again and again in my conversations with Christians is this idea that they don't "have souls" and that we're somehow above them because of it. I hear phrases like "animals were put here for our use" and "dominion over the beasts". Of course I don't have a place for either the soul or the afterlife in my worldview, but - if we get them, why not other hominids? Why not our companion animals? Why not unrelated species that show signs of intelligence, comprehension, capacity for a range of emotions? Why draw that line?
Oh, I was afraid you'd reply... :D My argument would be that humans have the ability to freely reject their impulses, but I assume what you're not asking if animals have souls but rather why animals don't have souls, which is a much tougher question. First of all the soullessness of animals is not necessarily common to all Christians and Jews. Some have the concept of Nephesh animals, which says that animals that show signs of intelligence do in fact have souls of a kind, whereas paramecium do not. I don't adhere to that idea though because I don't see it supported anywhere in Scripture, but that might constitute one response to your question. It might be the case that the answer to your question lies in the fact that you asked the question. The presence of various different types of sentience in animals causes us to question what sentience and having a soul means. The presence of multiple cases with which we can compare and contrast our own leads us to a better understanding of the soul. This question deserves a bit more thought from me, but for now I'll leave it at the idea that the variety of anatomy within the animal kingdom exists as art in a sense, and there is such a broad range of appearances simply for diversity's sake. Again, this is just my analysis, I could well be wrong, but this is what I suspect is the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I was afraid you'd reply... :D My argument would be that humans have the ability to freely reject their impulses, but I assume what you're not asking if animals have souls but rather why animals don't have souls, which is a much tougher question. First of all the soullessness of animals is not necessarily common to all Christians and Jews. Some have the concept of Nephesh animals, which says that animals that show signs of intelligence do in fact have souls of a kind, whereas paramecium do not. I don't adhere to that idea though because I don't see it supported anywhere in Scripture, but that might constitute one response to your question. It might be the case that the answer to your question lies in the fact that you asked the question. The presence of various different types of sentience in animals causes us to question what sentience and having a soul means. The presence of multiple cases with which we can compare and contrast our own leads us to a better understanding of the soul. This question deserves a bit more thought from me, but for now I'll leave it at the idea that the variety of anatomy within the animal kingdom exists as art in a sense, and there is such a broad range of appearances simply for diversity's sake. Again, this is just my analysis, I could well be wrong, but this is what I suspect is the case.
Ah, you were secretly hoping I'd chime in... :) The idea that sentience and/or "free will" places us apart from animals has echoes in some secular philosophy that I've read, particularly in (what I see as misguided) attempts to justify the use of animals for food and experiments. I've seen some pretty torturous definitions of suffering given by people who claim it's not immoral to kill things that can't suffer. I'm not a vegetarian and I don't want to derail into discussing that, but it's relevant to bring it up in passing, because while our brains might (?) have a level of access to themselves that's unique in the animal kingdom, and while we certainly seem to be unique in our ability to express our thoughts verbally, I'm not so sure that that's a good thing for the world at large and I certainly don't think it gives us a right to disregard other species or treat them amorally. I know that doesn't really touch on criteria for ensoulment, it's just part of my viewpoint - if I believed in souls, I'd certainly believe animals had them. I just don't think we're that special. I'll add that I think the inclusion of companion animals in our social groups has led to an extension of in-group feelings towards them; they come under the umbrella, so to speak, as we develop mutual comprehension of one another reinforced by millennia of breeding, which is why we can see it when our cats feel embarrassed and laugh when our dogs feel ashamed. They're social emotions. They're our social emotions. Obviously I'm not going to look to religious texts for my information, but I'm genuinely interested in what you get from them, what you think about these issues, and whether or not you'd like to see scientific study shed any more light on them... so here's another: What happens when people suffer trauma, due to injury, disease, drug use? If the soul is what differentiates us from other animals, is it responsible for our verbal and creative gifts? What about when trauma makes those disappear? Is the soul the "real us", the seat of our personalities? Do people who survive severe brain damage or lose their minds to dementia have some Platonic ideal of a soul waiting for them in the afterlife? Do they change back to the people we know and love, once they die, or do they take their damage with them? What if they suffer that trauma early, and it obviously changes who they "would have been", but they go through their entire life anyway, and function, like in the case of victims of childhood sexual abuse?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you allow for evolution, under the pretence that it was started by God, but then say God had to wait billions of years to put a soul into something enough like his ultimate dream of humanity that it wouldn't offend him if such a creature died and was admitted to heaven? That just seems illogical. If God did in fact start the process then it would make sense for him to include a soul in that same moment of creation. If the question is why don't animals have souls there are two logical answers from an objective viewpoint: either animals don't have souls because the soul does not exist (because one can not logically explain why human being, little more then an animal itself, should have a soul and yet the rest of the animal kingdom should be devoid of such a commodity) or all animals have a soul. Personally I vote for the former but we have free will and as such are free to believe what we will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you allow for evolution, under the pretence that it was started by God, but then say God had to wait billions of years to put a soul into something enough like his ultimate dream of humanity that it wouldn't offend him if such a creature died and was admitted to heaven? That just seems illogical. If God did in fact start the process then it would make sense for him to include a soul in that same moment of creation. If the question is why don't animals have souls there are two logical answers from an objective viewpoint: either animals don't have souls because the soul does not exist (because one can not logically explain why human being, little more then an animal itself, should have a soul and yet the rest of the animal kingdom should be devoid of such a commodity) or all animals have a soul. Personally I vote for the former but we have free will and as such are free to believe what we will.
The claim that objectivity demands two answers is a fallacy of ambiguity unless Christian concepts of teleology can be cross-applied to all religions in existence and indeed all spiritual realities possible. I don't know enough about biology to say why homo sapiens is an optimal arrangement, but from what I understand there are no animals with the kind of brainpower and anatomy necessary to build any kind of complex society with literature and architecture, outside of the ape family specifically. (for example, dolphins are apparently quite clever but they're not very talented with masonry) As to why that is the case I would refer back to my argument that God chose evolution as a facet of existence to create the optimal organism. Now this argument will be beaten as soon as there arises a species of giant flying octopus with an average IQ of 200, but as it stands now my argument is a pure hypothetical that remains to be proved wrong. As to God's decision with regards to time - again, if evolution is necessary, he simply waited for the process to work. Time has no meaning for God though he comprehends it.
Ah, you were secretly hoping I'd chime in... :) The idea that sentience and/or "free will" places us apart from animals has echoes in some secular philosophy that I've read, particularly in (what I see as misguided) attempts to justify the use of animals for food and experiments. I've seen some pretty torturous definitions of suffering given by people who claim it's not immoral to kill things that can't suffer. I'm not a vegetarian and I don't want to derail into discussing that, but it's relevant to bring it up in passing, because while our brains might (?) have a level of access to themselves that's unique in the animal kingdom, and while we certainly seem to be unique in our ability to express our thoughts verbally, I'm not so sure that that's a good thing for the world at large and I certainly don't think it gives us a right to disregard other species or treat them amorally. I know that doesn't really touch on criteria for ensoulment, it's just part of my viewpoint - if I believed in souls, I'd certainly believe animals had them. I just don't think we're that special. I'll add that I think the inclusion of companion animals in our social groups has led to an extension of in-group feelings towards them; they come under the umbrella, so to speak, as we develop mutual comprehension of one another reinforced by millennia of breeding, which is why we can see it when our cats feel embarrassed and laugh when our dogs feel ashamed. They're social emotions. They're our social emotions. Obviously I'm not going to look to religious texts for my information, but I'm genuinely interested in what you get from them, what you think about these issues, and whether or not you'd like to see scientific study shed any more light on them... so here's another: What happens when people suffer trauma, due to injury, disease, drug use? If the soul is what differentiates us from other animals, is it responsible for our verbal and creative gifts? What about when trauma makes those disappear? Is the soul the "real us", the seat of our personalities? Do people who survive severe brain damage or lose their minds to dementia have some Platonic ideal of a soul waiting for them in the afterlife? Do they change back to the people we know and love, once they die, or do they take their damage with them? What if they suffer that trauma early, and it obviously changes who they "would have been", but they go through their entire life anyway, and function, like in the case of victims of childhood sexual abuse?
You'll break the site, you will, with your long-ass posts. :D At this point you're asking questions about psychology, which is something I don't have much understanding of. So to give a rudimentary answer to your questions; I'm given to understand that the soul does exist within people who suffer from mental trauma, disability, dementia and brain damage. If the soul exists I would imagine that it is impossible to measure yet impossible to deny. I would say it is the seat of our personalities, yes, but also of what we could be. As for mental damage being taken to heaven, well, there is Scripture saying that those who go to heaven are given new bodies. What exactly these bodies are I have no idea. The soul may be in part responsible for verbal and creative gifts, but probably not entirely. So, I have two questions for you, one very broad and the other more personal and loosely related to this thread: what is your fundamental criterion for determining morality? And the second question: why did you decide to have children? Recently I've been curious as to why people wish to become parents, so I might bother NTNR and BAN for answers as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd have to go elsewhere to pester Mike he's buggered off and doesn't seem keen on coming back. I can answer your first question. My moral compass is founded upon life experience and common sense. One doesn't need a book of rules telling them what not to do when reasons for not partaking of certain activities are far more tangible and self-evident. For example if one is in a relationship then there is a certain degree of trust involved. Lying to one's partner breaches that trust and is obviously immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the second question: why did you decide to have children? Recently I've been curious as to why people wish to become parents, so I might bother NTNR and BAN for answers as well.
As someone who doesn't have (nor especially want) children of their own, I too am interested in this question. FTR though, I'm a kid-lover.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I have two questions for you, one very broad and the other more personal and loosely related to this thread: what is your fundamental criterion for determining morality? And the second question: why did you decide to have children? Recently I've been curious as to why people wish to become parents, so I might bother NTNR and BAN for answers as well.
Precise, but rarely concise!:) TL;DR: Mean people suck, and I love my kid though I wasn't expecting him. I don't think there is a fundamental criterion, and it's a little odd that you use the singular given the multiplicity of situations life can throw at us. If you're asking what personal choices I make, or what guidelines I adhere to, there are a few that stand out. I try never to act out of malice; to be sincere; and to avoid violence whenever possible. This is why I'm conflicted about the meat industry and meat consumption, and why I have a problem with state-sponsored execution, not to mention war. I'm not going to get involved in a political discussion on the merits of any of these things; suffice it to say that I've accepted living in a culture where all of our violence is outsourced, but I'm not comfortable with it, and that I've had a deep revulsion towards intentional harm since I was a small child. I believe it's instinctual, though I was raised in a very sheltered, supportive spiritual environment for the first few years of my life and it could easily be a product of that. Tying into my next point: If you're asking how I know what's right and wrong without a measuring stick, I think everyone does (not talking about extreme exceptions). We may draw our lines in different places, culturally and personally, but as far as I've read, the existence of a moral code is a common feature of every society that's ever been recorded. I think it's an evolved adaptation. This isn't to say that we're "born knowing", but that morality develops, like vision in infants or linguistic ability in toddlers: informed by its environment but instinctual in that some form of it would develop in any normal circumstance. We have a host of emotions that have arisen from the pressure of living as social animals: instincts of appeasement, hierarchy, face-saving measures, the search for power. Morality isn't about abstract absolutes, it's about the social realities of dealing with other humans. And we reserve the heights of moral behavior for our in-group. So if you want a real-world metric, it could be, how wide do you cast your net? Here's a problem - morality is easily derailed. I see bigotry and xenophobia as the flip side of kin/reciprocal altruism. Amoral and cruel behavior is easy to elicit given the right (wrong?) set of social circumstances, as evidenced by the Stanford prison experiment and testimony from participants in human "medical research" in WWII Japan. I think the lesson isn't that power corrupts, but that it's very easy to treat people with indifferent cruelty when you put them in your out-group. For instance, it's hard for me to see how someone in 18th C America could have been a decent person and a slave-owner, but apparently that contradiction wasn't keenly felt at the time, because of the weight of cultural opinion that people with certain physical features were worth more than others. Leaving that topic, about my son: I didn't think I would ever be a parent. I rarely imagined myself as one. It was sometimes appealing, sometimes daunting, and mostly alien to me, since I still identify myself as a "young" person, care deeply about my art, and devote a lot of time and energy to it. Once I found out that my wife was pregnant (and how on earth did that happen?) I got really scared that I'd be emotionally inadequate, distant, too self-concerned to be a good father. I didn't want to have a child at that time, if ever, but my wife was intent on it, and very happy about the prospect. My concern for her and my worries about myself persisted through her brutal four-day labor and the C-section at the hospital. But as soon as I saw my son, I felt something I'd never experienced before: the physical manifestation of an emotion that's difficult to put into words. I felt it settling over me like a cloak. It was kind of prickly; the closest sensation I can think of is the cold rush of the fight-or-flight response as it speeds through your limbs, but it wasn't that. It was a sense of absolute responsibility and complete love for my child. It was basically instantaneous. It's still there. And I'll always be grateful for the situation that I've had, to be able to spend so much time with him and watch him grow; one of the best gifts I ever could have had, and nothing I would have chosen. Not planning on having another, though, I have to say...:D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're asking how I know what's right and wrong without a measuring stick, I think everyone does (not talking about extreme exceptions). [...] We have a host of emotions that have arisen from the pressure of living as social animals: instincts of appeasement, hierarchy, face-saving measures, the search for power. Morality isn't about abstract absolutes, it's about the social realities of dealing with other humans. And we reserve the heights of moral behavior for our in-group. So if you want a real-world metric, it could be, how wide do you cast your net? Here's a problem - morality is easily derailed. I see bigotry and xenophobia as the flip side of kin/reciprocal altruism. Amoral and cruel behavior is easy to elicit given the right (wrong?) set of social circumstances, as evidenced by the Stanford prison experiment and testimony from participants in human "medical research" in WWII Japan. I think the lesson isn't that power corrupts, but that it's very easy to treat people with indifferent cruelty when you put them in your out-group. For instance, it's hard for me to see how someone in 18th C America could have been a decent person and a slave-owner, but apparently that contradiction wasn't keenly felt at the time, because of the weight of cultural opinion that people with certain physical features were worth more than others.
First of all, thanks for responding to the parenting question, it's the kind of detailed insight I was hoping for. The thing is, I see people live vicariously through their children, but also parents who pay little to no attention to their kid's well-being. I had to wonder what motivates the happy medium between those two extremes. With regards to morality; I find that it's useful to keep asking questions about one's ethical rationale until one can find something good in and of itself. My root of ultimate good now is the idea that God is morally perfect, and my logic stems from that 'self-evident good', if you will. Typically the answers I've gotten from various individuals all essentially boil down to to social morality, the common good, survival or the value of life. These are the values that people hold. Everything they do that they consider right meets that criterion. I'll pose two questions then: First, if morals are social, is the comatose man amoral by virtue of his inability to interact with others - and does that by extension mean morals apply only to actions? Second, are sociopaths immoral merely by virtue of their failure to inherit this ethical trait? Another quick thing, slavery did not exist because of racism, not by a long shot. The Ethiopian kingdoms and Swahili polities were enslaving racially identical people for centuries before the European slave trade as we understand it had even really begun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, I'm trying to cook for my thanksgiving meal!:D Give a guy a break...

Another quick thing' date=' slavery did not exist because of racism, not by a long shot. The Ethiopian kingdoms and Swahili polities were enslaving racially identical people for centuries before the European slave trade as we understand it had even really begun.[/quote'] Very quickly - just to this point - you can't ignore the "racial superiority" justifications that were offered for slavery during the milieu I referred to. I'm not saying that racism is the root cause of slavery; I'm saying that that particular situation (including some writing from the period) illustrates my point (as do the other examples I gave) by casting in-group/out-group conflicts, and the dehumanizing assumptions that go with them, into sharp relief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very quickly - just to this point - you can't ignore the "racial superiority" justifications that were offered for slavery during the milieu I referred to. I'm not saying that racism is the root cause of slavery; I'm saying that that particular situation (including some writing from the period) illustrates my point (as do the other examples I gave) by casting in-group/out-group conflicts' date=' and the dehumanizing assumptions that go with them, into sharp relief.[/quote'] Fair enough. I'll give you a break. Enjoy Thanksgiving!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoy eating far too much of the world's dumbest bird' date=' don't drink and drive, but if you do and you hit someone hopefully it's one of your enemies :D[/quote'] The world's dumbest bird was probably the dodo... after all, it went extinct over the course of a few years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Why do we exist?

Enjoy eating far too much of the world's dumbest bird' date=' don't drink and drive, but if you do and you hit someone hopefully it's one of your enemies :D[/quote'] Dumb or not, that fucker is tasty. And luckily for me, my wife is pregnant, so I always have a designated driver, which I'm certain I'll need. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Join Metal Forum

    joinus-home.jpg

  • Our picks

    • Whichever tier of thrash metal you consigned Sacred Reich back in the 80's/90's they still had their moments.  "Ignorance" & "Surf Nicaragura" did a great job of establishing the band, whereas "The American Way" just got a little to comfortable and accessible (the title track grates nowadays) for my ears.  A couple more records better left forgotten about and then nothing for twenty three years.  2019 alone has now seen three releases from Phil Rind and co.  A live EP, a split EP with Iron Reagan and now a full length.

      Notable addition to the ranks for the current throng of releases is former Machine Head sticksman, Dave McClean.  Love or hate Machine Head, McClean is a more than capable drummer and his presence here is felt from the off with the opening and title track kicking things off with some real gusto.  'Divide & Conquer' and 'Salvation' muddle along nicely, never quite reaching any quality that would make my balls tingle but comfortable enough.  The looming build to 'Manifest Reality' delivers a real punch when the song starts proper.  Frenzied riffs and drums with shots of lead work to hold the interest.


      There's a problem already though (I know, I am such a fucking mood hoover).  I don't like Phil's vocals.  I never had if I am being honest.  The aggression to them seems a little forced even when they are at their best on tracks like 'Manifest Reality'.  When he tries to sing it just feels weak though ('Salvation') and tracks lose real punch.  Give him a riffy number such as 'Killing Machine' and he is fine with the Reich engine (probably a poor choice of phrase) up in sixth gear.  For every thrashy riff there's a fair share of rock edged, local bar act rhythm aplenty too.

      Let's not poo-poo proceedings though, because overall I actually enjoy "Awakening".  It is stacked full of catchy riffs that are sticky on the old ears.  Whilst not as raw as perhaps the - brilliant - artwork suggests with its black and white, tattoo flash sheet style design it is enjoyable enough.  Yes, 'Death Valley' & 'Something to Believe' have no place here, saved only by Arnett and Radziwill's lead work but 'Revolution' is a fucking 80's thrash heyday throwback to the extent that if you turn the TV on during it you might catch a new episode of Cheers!

      3/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 10 replies
    • I
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/52-vltimas-something-wicked-marches-in/
      • Reputation Points

      • 3 replies

    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/48-candlemass-the-door-to-doom/
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • Full length number 19 from overkill certainly makes a splash in the energy stakes, I mean there's some modern thrash bands that are a good two decades younger than Overkill who can only hope to achieve the levels of spunk that New Jersey's finest produce here.  That in itself is an achievement, for a band of Overkill's stature and reputation to be able to still sound relevant four decades into their career is no mean feat.  Even in the albums weaker moments it never gets redundant and the energy levels remain high.  There's a real sense of a band in a state of some renewed vigour, helped in no small part by the addition of Jason Bittner on drums.  The former Flotsam & Jetsam skinsman is nothing short of superb throughout "The Wings of War" and seems to have squeezed a little extra out of the rest of his peers.

      The album kicks of with a great build to opening track "Last Man Standing" and for the first 4 tracks of the album the Overkill crew stomp, bash and groove their way to a solid level of consistency.  The lead work is of particular note and Blitz sounds as sneery and scathing as ever.  The album is well produced and mixed too with all parts of the thrash machine audible as the five piece hammer away at your skull with the usual blend of chugging riffs and infectious anthems.  


      There are weak moments as mentioned but they are more a victim of how good the strong tracks are.  In it's own right "Distortion" is a solid enough - if not slightly varied a journey from the last offering - but it just doesn't stand up well against a "Bat Shit Crazy" or a "Head of a Pin".  As the album draws to a close you get the increasing impression that the last few tracks are rescued really by some great solos and stomping skin work which is a shame because trimming of a couple of tracks may have made this less obvious. 

      4/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 4 replies
×
×
  • Create New...