The Art of Philosophy #3: Man's Purpose in Life

[Razor]

I'm just a tad late. Apologies. Though I did make 2 or 3 threads between The Art #2 and this one. At any rate, let's get at 'er.

-----------------------------------------------

What is Man's purpose in life? It's the eternal question of our existence. The one side-effect of our evolution is that we got big brains. Brains that are much to big for our good, as it would seem. With our abilities to conceive bigger and better tools, to empathize with our fellow primates, to live communally for the common good of everyone, and to predict the future outcomes of our actions we also have one big weakness. We think. We think about everything. Especially what we've been sent here to do, what our lives should be spent furthering.

There are a few theories. We'll start with the eternal philosopher, the man everyone brings up as the father of Existentialism. That man is, of course, Friedrich Nietzche.

Nietzche is perhaps more famous for his works in Existentialism and Postmodernism. However, he has one theory that in his thought process trumps a major proponent of Evolution. Excuse the wiki:

An important element of Nietzsche's philosophical outlook is the "will to power" (der Wille zur Macht), which provides a basis for understanding motivation in human behavior.

Quite simply, der Wille zur Macht, drives our lives. Every man, woman, and child lives to further his own power. Behind every action is an underlying goal to further their own power over others. Nietzche even argues that survival of the fittest, the argument by Charles Darwin that only the beings most apt for reproduction will move their genes along the gene pool, takes a back seat evolutionarily speaking to this "Will to Power."

Hell, Nietzche even tried to redefine matter as a "Center for will of power," instead of matter being the center of force. Basically, Nietzche tried to transform basic metaphysical principle. Oh well. This was Nietzche we're talking about.

Our next argument comes from the revered philosophical man of the Vatican church, the author of the Summa Theologica, a revered "teacher of the church," a man who was granted Sainthood a mere 50 years after his death, the man Dante gifts with a position in the 4th sphere of Heaven. The man, of course, is Saint Thomas Aquinas. Excuse the wiki:

In Aquinas's thought, the goal of human existence is union and eternal fellowship with God. Specifically, this goal is achieved through the beatific vision, an event in which a person experiences perfect, unending happiness by seeing the very essence of God.

Saint Thomas argues that the goal of human existence is to be one with God, for being one with God is the only true happiness. The "beatific vision" is only granted at death, and is only granted to those who have experience salvation and redemption through God while on Earth as a gift from God. Basically, we all try for happiness through God.

There are yet more ideas of thought on this, such as the existential idea that we should be more bothered with our existence than the reason for why we're here. Or the absurdist belief that there is no more reason to life than that which we grant it.


So. This thread is simple. What is our purpose in life? To be as one with God? To build our own power amongst our fellow man? Or is there no rhyme or reason to this madness? Stake your claim.

 

[Dexter]

Fantastic thread, first of all. Also, don't let people give you shit about quoting wikipedia. In a friendly, casual debate like this, it's perfectly appropriate.

You almost have to admire the Christians on this point, huh? They're perfectly content with this question. Pastor Rick Warren simplified it even further than Saint Thomas and sold millions of books in the process.

* What on Earth Am I Here For?
* Purpose #1: You Were Planned for God's Pleasure (Worship)
* Purpose #2: You Were Formed for God's Family (Fellowship)
* Purpose #3: You Were Created to Become Like Christ (Discipleship)
* Purpose #4: You Were Shaped for Serving God (Ministry)
* Purpose #5: You Were Made for a Mission (Mission)

Seems pretty cut and dry, huh? Philosophers spend millenia tossing the idea around, and in step the Christians and say "here's your answer, lets move on." I can't speak to any other religion because I have to admit ignorance of anything other than Christianity, as that's how I was raised for the better part of my first 18 years, but I'd be willing to bet it's just as clear to them. When you have faith in a higher power, this question just doesn't seem as complicated.

So then, it seems like there's two camps here: the religious, that have it all figured out, and the atheist that has to find his own answer.

 

[jokeboy624]

I'm going to take what I've always felt was the minority position and say that there is no purpose to life outside of what you grant it. As you stated in your opening paragraph we evolved these "big brains" which allow us to think and extrapolate on the many mysteries of the universe, and of course the biggest being why are we here.

I believe the simple answer is that as our ancestors evolved they fell into a kind of footrace with each other to see who could procreate the most and have the most progeny survive. This led to humans that could think and reason better than the previous generations, until eventually homo sapiens evolved and took over the world. With this dominance, we no longer had to compete with other animals to gather resources or find shelter, so the urgency to procreate subsided somewhat. If we are no longer driven to procreate and procure our legacy into the future, we have no purpose to our existence.

With that being said, in a perfect world, our "reason for being" should be to make the life on Earth better for everyone, even in the smallest of ways. That just might be the optimist in me.

 

[Loveless]

Ah now we're getting somewhere interesting. The Will To Power doesn't just cover human motivation, it's like universal theory of everything's existence. Everything exists to exert it's power over everything else. I'm not so familiar with STA, I'll need to do some reading.
Anyway, as much as I like Nietzsche, I've always prescribed to Camus in Le Mythe De Sisyphus. Life is to be lived in oblivious and happy rebellion against the tragic pointlessness of existence.
I'm also a fan of Nicomachean ethics by Aristotle. Life's meaning lays in being happy but happiness can't be aquired until the end of your life, only contentment in the meantime and while you're getting on with that, live a moral and good life, do it well enough and achieve happiness (or if you were a Buddhist, enlightenment) at the end.

 

[Razor]

Fantastic thread, first of all. Also, don't let people give you shit about quoting wikipedia. In a friendly, casual debate like this, it's perfectly appropriate.

You have a point. But still, wiki is unreliable as all hell. If I could find my books on Nietzche and St. Thomas, I'd be much more comfortable.

So then, it seems like there's two camps here: the religious, that have it all figured out, and the atheist that has to find his own answer.

Right-o. Nietzche, Camus, and the like have attempted to answer such. I still find Nietzche's the most intriguing. And idea that everything in the universe is simply attempting to gain power over everything else? That's...cosmic.

there is no purpose to life outside of what you grant it.

Ah. An absurdist. Welcome to the party. I would be an absurdist, but it's much too bleak. Gregory House would be an example of an absurdist, I'd wager. He's quoted as saying in an episode:

I find it much more comforting that this isn't all a test.

..or something to that effect.

With that being said, in a perfect world, our "reason for being" should be to make the life on Earth better for everyone, even in the smallest of ways. That just might be the optimist in me.

Oh, I'm just like you. I'm such an eternal optimist. but under this layer of optimism lays a realist just itching to get out and tear all of my dreams asunder.

Ah now we're getting somewhere interesting. The Will To Power doesn't just cover human motivation, it's like universal theory of everything's existence. Everything exists to exert it's power over everything else. I'm not so familiar with STA, I'll need to do some reading.

Right. If it seemed as though I were limiting "the Will to Power" to only humans, I misspoke. He tried to redefine metaphysical principle after all.

Anyway, as much as I like Nietzsche, I've always prescribed to Camus in Le Mythe De Sisyphus. Life is to be lived in oblivious and happy rebellion against the tragic pointlessness of existence.

Oh Camus. His book "The Stranger" probably serves very well at defining this. The Myth of Sisyphus is one confusing writing, though. I remember just looking at, getting lost.

I'm also a fan of Nicomachean ethics by Aristotle. Life's meaning lays in being happy but happiness can't be aquired until the end of your life, only contentment in the meantime and while you're getting on with that, live a moral and good life, do it well enough and achieve happiness (or if you were a Buddhist, enlightenment) at the end.

That's also reminiscent of the Catholic Church's stance, or what Saint Thomas spoke of. We spend our entire lives in search of true happiness, and only find that happiness through the final beatific vision. Which I find as an incredibly easy cop-out, sticking true happiness just beyond what we can measure with anything short of anecdotal evidence.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Holy crap...how did I not see the first two of these?

I think that humanity's purpose in life is to become fully realized. What this means...I'm not sure. But at some point, the human has an "aha" moment where he/she realizes who he/she is and the universe begins to make sense. At the same time, I'm not sure if full realization is possible because I'm not really of the opinion that one can be at onement with God by his own volition. Thus "atonement" must be made possible through an intermediary. For me, that intermediary is Jesus Christ. My inability to be one with God is paid for by his sacrifice, and thus, like a bridge connecting two sides, I am able to be one with God.

So, perhaps the goal of life IS to be one with God. But more or less, the reality of life is that atonement cannot come from one's own human power.

 

[Loveless]

That's also reminiscent of the Catholic Church's stance, or what Saint Thomas spoke of. We spend our entire lives in search of true happiness, and only find that happiness through the final beatific vision. Which I find as an incredibly easy cop-out, sticking true happiness just beyond what we can measure with anything short of anecdotal evidence.

I don't think Aristotle was thinking anything beyond this life. I think what he was getting at was a moment of realisation near the end of your life, which brings it's own peace if you've lived a selfless life without greed etc. You know, typical Buddhist principles of letting go of fear, possessions, self etc and existing in totally relaxed state. I tried to live that life before but I realised I actually prefer life to peace of mind. Still, there's plenty to take from it.
I could never take on the philosophy on anything beyond this life and I don't concern myself with it. Life is to be lived bravely and for the self, not for what comes after or as the possession of a higher power. Isn't it about time we took responsibility for our own lives instead of relying on the benevolence of an absent parent and trying to seek their approval?

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Loveless,

Since when is belief in a transcending being merely a rationalization for juvenile irresponsibility? Can't one simply believe because he/she finds it logical to do so?

In terms of Aristotle, he himself influenced a great deal of theological thinking, namely the beliefs of St. Anselm.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Our purpose in life is either given to us or we make it ourselves depending on where we live. Also, I don't think Nietzsche really had much to say about ethics except from a strictly objective viewpoint (see The Genealogy Of Morals). If you actually can attain any meaning from what Nietzsche talks about in his heavily aphoristic writing, then you should get a PhD in Philosophy with a concentration in Nietzsche, as I don't think anyone really knows what his syphilitic mind was getting at (same thing goes for Hegel...I guess this is what happens when you are preceded by the greatest philosopher since the Common Era began).

Furthermore, why is this called the Art of Philosophy, and not the Art of Moral Philosophy? I keep on looking at these threads thinking that metaphysical and epistemological topics will be covered, but there's been nothing on these subjects yet.

 

[Loveless]

Loveless,
Since when is belief in a transcending being merely a rationalization for juvenile irresponsibility? Can't one simply believe because he/she finds it logical to do so?

It's not a rationalization, it's a consequence. Every single person I've ever known believes in a deity because they believe that they'll be protected and they'll be rewarded for it. Involuntarily (for some at least) they give up responsibility for their own life as a trade.
Let's take a child, one day he wakes up in his bed, doesn't know how he got there or anything of his existence, no parents, only brothers and sisters. The child now has a choice to make. He can either spend his entire life housekeeping in the belief it keeps him safe and that one day a myth will come to rescue him or he can take responsibility for himself, go into the world and live the life he finds he finds himself with.
Freedom, self-responsibility and owning the gift of this life or subservience to an idea in the hope you'll get another gift at the end?

And logical? What's logical about believing in a transcending being?

In terms of Aristotle, he himself influenced a great deal of theological thinking, namely the beliefs of St. Anselm.

That's philosophy for you, everyone takes everyone else's ideas and puts their own spin on them.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Then you must not know very many people.

Belief in the transcendent is also something that enriches the life here and now. If it was something that people had to endure just to get a prize at the end...I don't think too many people would follow such a notion.


Edit: Furthermore, elaborate as to what you mean about "giving up responsibility for one's own life."

 

[Tastycles]

I've read Aquinas, it's quite interesting. He manages to marry just about everything to God, without being ridiculous either, for the most part.

However, as for the question at hand, it's rather simple to answer, but rather depressing at the same time. The answer is that man, quite simply, has no purpose in life. We just exist, and while it would be nice to think that there's some overarching point to it all, there isn't. You sit where you sit reading this due to a series of coincidences that first started in motion 10 billion years ago.

The universe doesn't care that you were born, and it won't care when you die. A human being can scarecly change human history and development, let alone the earth, and let alone the universe. The Universe was here when I was born, it'll be here when I die. The atoms I'm made of will eventually leave my body and go back to the cosmos, having not changed at all.

I'm not depressed by this, because in my perception there is a point, to be happy, but in all honesty, that is just how we are configured. I am no more relevent to the development of all that exists than a dustpan. There is no purpose of man, but unlike other species, we're bothered by that. A dog doesn't question its place in all this, and neither should we, but we do, so we invented religion.