Detached9

your purpose in life is to define your purpose.

I agree, we define our own purpose in life, which makes our purpose in life not objective. I was wondering if I should have added objective to my argument.

WJ

Gosh, that was easy! Snatch answered it rather succinctly! The existentialist' in me, too, would agree to such a proposition.

Now, the difficult task of 'means and methods'...

logic.

Walrus

Detached9

Snatch answered it rather succinctly!

What if I altered the argument whereas instead of postulating that there is no purpose to life as a whole, that there is no objective purpose to life as whole. This would eliminate the answer of, "Our purpose in life is to define our own purpose in life", for that is not an objective purpose.

snatchbalance

Detached9

First, what do you mean by "objective purpose"?

I mean, can one see, touch, smell, etc. "purpose"?

Do you mean some sort of external authority that is set up to define "purpose"?

What if I were to look at the individual as a self aware system(SAS). A part of the SAS is in charge of "purpose". The other parts of the SAS allow it to be the authority for the SAS. Does "purpose", as defined by that part of the individual SAS then become objective? At least for the parts of that particular SAS?

Snatchbalance

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

WJ

9!

Good point. The problem of logic seems to be two fold. It seeks to objectify existence [purpose in our case] and it requires someone to already know the meaning of concepts, words, etc.

For instance, from your reply, I want to respond by saying... gee, let us next define these words from your [true?] proposition:

"Our purpose in life is to define our own purpose in life".

purpose
life
define

At some point, I believe logic get's kicked to the curb. The movie Titanic and Forrest Gump is another example.

....know what I mean vern?

Walrus

Detached9

what do you mean by "objective purpose"?

By an objective purpose I mean a purpose that is not based upon personal opinion or bias. Do I really have to keep defining objective, or am I not understanding this objection?

I understand that this is a Philosophy forum where the usage of words are argued more than anything, but come on, I already defined objective. It sounds like I may not be understanding this objection.

Define define? Did you really ask me to define define? By asking me to define anything, you are presupposing there is an understanding (or at least you have an understanding) of what the word define means.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

MeBeMe

So would you consider "the passing on of genetic material" to fall under an objective purpose? Meaning, many people already think our purpose is to pass on genes, which would be outside personal bias and opinion, but I'm doubting you'd be willing to grant that as being an objective purpose, especially if you're arguing, ultimately, there is no objective purpose.
It also seems to me an objective purpose doesn't necessarily have to be one not based on opinion/personal bias. That is, most Christians, I assume, think there is objective purpose to life, outside of THEIR personal opinion (such as the old "it's God's way that matters, not yours"), but that nevertheless falls on God's opinion of how they should live their lives (worshipping God, being good, etc.) So that, overall, an objective purpose for one (the person) is actually the subjective opinion/belief/etc. of another being (God), and thus an objective purpose doesn't necessarily have to be one that is based on lack of personal opinion/bias, unless you include only humans (or something like) in that mix.
Personally, I can't imagine how you can possibly argue premise (1), since as others pointed out, it seems, so, well, impossible based on current knowledge, even if it doesn't fall into being internally inconsistent as someone mentioned.

Also, as Nozick argues in "Philosophical Investigations", it would seem that to explain why anything exists the final statement, if you will, needs to explain both why everything else exists and why itself exists, assuming something (like the universe, ideals, or what not) haven't always existed).

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: MeBeMe ]</p>

Detached9

So would you consider "the passing on of genetic material" to fall under an objective purpose? Meaning, many people already think our purpose is to pass on genes, which would be outside personal bias and opinion, but I'm doubting you'd be willing to grant that as being an objective purpose, especially if you're arguing, ultimately, there is no objective purpose.

"The passing on of genetic material" presupposes that there is genetic material to pass on in the first place, it is begging the question. For what purpose does "the passing on of genetic material" serve? Or, more importantly, for what purpose does existence serve? It actually doesn't make any sense to ask what purpose existence serves as a whole, for if it served the purpose of something, then it would be fulfilling desired aims or goals. If something is fulfilling desired aims or goals, then it can't be the first thing existing. The first thing existing can not possibly fulfill any desired aims or goals, or in other words, the first thing existing can not serve any purpose.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

MeBeMe

I don't see how saying "passing on of genetic material" begs any questions, especially considering the question didn't revolve around whether there was genetic material, but rather a purpose to human life absent opinion/personal bias. To many, namely certain evolutionary psychologists, biologists, etc., the overall purpse of human life is to be a passer on of genetic material. Your question:

"For what purpose does "the passing on of genetic material" serve?"

though interesting, doesn't matter in this case, since you're arguing there is no purpose/objective meaning to life, not genetic material. Even if there was no ultimate purpose to the passing on of genetic material, it wouldn't follow that it was therefore moot that the overall purpose of a human life was to pass on their genetic material.
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. Even if the universe just *poof* came into existence, I can still easily conceive of something having an objective purpose (lacking personal bias and opinion), and the genetic material passing example would be one such case.
Finally, since we seem to be going completely off the topic, based on your defintion of purpose/objective meaning it doesn't seem to be the case there needs to be a "desired aims or goals", since to desire, so far as I see it, requires an agent who desires something, which would go back to making it subjective.
And finally finally, you're arguing there is no objective purpose to life, which doesn't mean there has to be a purpose to the purpose. As I already said, one can meet your criteria of having "objective meaning", as you define it, through saying "the objective meaning of life overall for the human species is to pass on genetic material". I honestly don't see how you can argue there isn't genetic material, at least without being laughed at, and it meets your criteria. Even if there is no objective purpose to the passing on of genetic material, it doesn't follow there is no objective purpose to human life. (I guess).
Love,
MBM

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: MeBeMe ]</p>

snatchbalance

Detached9

Are you really looking for some sort of "philosophical" answer, rather than a logical answer?

Snatchbalance