Detached9

Perhaps I'm reading you incorrectly, but it seems what you're saying is that if the universe, beginning, etc., as a whole didn't have a purpose, then nothing can have any objective purpose, which, based on your definition, seems incorrect.

And there is the misunderstanding. I am not arguing that nothing has an objective purpose, rather than the "universe, beginning, etc. as a whole [doesn't] have a purpose."

The passing on of genetic material presupposes there is genetic material to pass on, okay, I'm rehashing the same argument. What is the purpose of life existing in the first place, which contains the genetic material in it? I'm not sure what you're getting at with this, you seemed to have avoided the question.

To address Snatchbalance's question, I'm a neophyte when it comes to Philosophy, so perhaps I misunderstand, but isn't logic a large part of Philosophy?

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

MeBeMe

Your conclusion is:

"(4) Therefore, it is rational to conclude that there is no objective meaning to life as a whole."

While your argument assumes there is no objective purpose to the universe as a whole, the conclusion does not state that, but rather holds there is no objective purpose/meaning to (I presume human) life, and thus my point is that, again, it doesn't follow that just because the universe has no objective purpose to exist/be, that human life doesn't as well, based on your criteria (lack of personal bias/opinion).

Detached9

MeBeMe, I don't know where to go with my argument. Ignore the first post in the thread, that argument I dropped. A few posts later I reformulated the argument, except in an informal manner. I don't know how to make a formal argument out of what I am arguing.

Before life actually existed, what purpose does life serve by existing? If it doesn't serve a purpose, then there is no objective purpose to life as a whole.

Ignore the first post in the thread. Sorry for the confusion.

snatchbalance

Detached9

To me, logic is a tool. It is usefull for testing the validity of certain propositions. The purpose of the universe does not lend itself to this type of analysis,IMHO. (I have scanned some books on formal logic, and I am aware of some of it's basic forms, but that's about it. Maybe it's time for me to look at it a little more carfully.)

This does not mean that one cannot find a purpose in life. But, as pointed out by MeBeMe, other than the uitilitarian passing on of genetic material, there is no purpose, other than the one you create.

Snatchbalance

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

WJ

9!

Consider the 'creation' of the Being Spock. His existence was based on the 'objective logic' as used in creating computer programs (the apriori, formal logic). (Like math, the output is either yes or no.) The meaning of life is an element of human sentience, for which Spock had no interest, nor was he capable of displaying such an interest.

Sentience was not programmed into his Being. Things like emotions, love, hate, feelings, happiness, etc. he could not compute. Only human's are capable of surviving an actual meltdown from common everyday input such as these. And, living long enough to attempt a semi-logical explaination of them!

Now, the question is, aren't you glad you're not a Spock! You get to live longer! Pure logic viz. the meaning of life, (whatever that might be) is bad for your health. I've made 'many a logician' experience meltdown


Walrus

Detached9

This does not mean that one cannot find a purpose in life. But, as pointed out by MeBeMe, other than the utilitarian passing on of genetic material, there is no purpose, other than the one you create.

I agree, and that's what I wanted to argue. Not that we can't define our own purpose, but rather there is no objective (independent of our minds, our perception) purpose to life as a whole (before life actually existed, it serves no purpose by actually existing).

owleye

Detach9...

Let me offer a slightly altered characterization of your conclusion.

If there is no sufficient reason for X, then X can have no meaning and indeed X cannot even exist.

(Note my addition of 'sufficient' -- which may help you avoid an argument from ignorance.)

If this is something you wish to defend, it may be said that you are arguing from the principle of sufficient reason, something Leibniz made famous. Leibniz's working hypothesis is that "a sufficient reason must be found in something of metaphysical necessity; the ultimate reason for the existence of all things is to be found in the divine essence and intellect." [Adams, p. 41]

Alternatively, a sufficient reason for the existence of a thing, for Leibniz, is derived from its essence. Thus, for Leibniz, essence precedes existence.

Here is Leibniz's "proof" of this famous principle: [Adams, p. 68]

Proposition: "Nothing is without a reason or whatever is has a sufficient reason."

Definition 1: "A sufficient reason is that which is such that if it is posited, the thing is.

Definition 2: "A requirement is that which is such that if it is not posited the thing is not."

Demonstration:

(1) Whatever is, has all [its] requirements. For if one [of them] is not posited the thing is not by def. 2.

(2) If all [its] requirements are posited, the thing is. For if it is not, it will be kept from being by the lack of something, that is, a requirement.

(3) Therefore all the Requirements are a sufficient reason by def. 1.

(4) Therefore whatever is has a sufficient reason.

QED.

Thoughts? (Let me add that the proof is not without difficulties, despite that Leibniz was happy with it. I leave you to determine for yourself whether it makes sense to you.)

owleye

MeBeMe

I'm just going to brush over owleye's comment and respond to your former informal version of what you're trying to argue. You put...

"If the purpose of life's existence is given by something which itself doesn't serve a purpose, then life serves no purpose as a whole, for life is serving the purpose of something that is purposeless."

-This just seems to be a blatant genetic fallacy. Just because the universe, as a whole, has no purpose (assuming it even makes sense to say such a thing and assuming it's true), it doesn't follow that the things in the universe have no objective meaning, based on how you define objective meaning.
Let's say a robot magically forms with no purpose (you can obviously push this back and say "where is the robot standing, is where he is standing have purpose, etc., but let's just ignore that for points sake). Capable of building but with no "mind", if you will, it builds things randomly with no purpose, just going through the motions. One day it builds fifty robotic ants, all of which, even though not purposely designed, were nevertheless set up in a way to build ice castles, and for the rest of their functioning "lives", they build ice castles.

Now, it seems to me, based on your idea of "objective meaning", these ants have objective meaning to their lives, i.e. to build ice castles. It is what they were formed to do. On accident, yes, but nevertheless, through the result of random processes, built in a way that made their purpose to build ice castles.

Likewise, I don't see how, just because human life may have come about from a universe without purpose, that it therefore follows that their life has no objective meaning, even as a "whole". I don't use the passing on of genetic material to prove you wrong, but rather to suggest a life with objective purpose is not logically incompatible with a universe that has no purpose. Likewise, i can easily conceive of a universe with a purpose bringing forth things with no objective purpose.

snatchbalance

MeBeMe

It seems to me that while both the robot did something, and the mechanical ants are doing somthing, none of it has any "meaning", objective or otherwise.

I think that for anything to have "meaning" or purpose, somthing, or sombody, needs to assign it a purpose. Mechanical ants building ice castles, dosen't seem much different than rocks grinding against one another in a stream. They may make smaller rocks, but until someone walks by and says, "Look at those rocks grinding against each other.", is there any meaning? I would grant that there are a number of physical phenomenon taking place, but there is no meaning or purpose to it.

Snatchbalance