Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

What is our purpose?

Reply
#2
Secular Sanity Offline
Happiness is a human concept and synthetic.  IMHO, our basic purpose is survival. 

Let’s say that for example, Syne is smarter than I am.  No-no that’s too unrealistic.  Wink

Let’s say that he’s stronger and has more endurance than me.  He’s able to plow his field better than I am.  His crops yield larger and tastier fruits and vegetables than mine.  Is he not entitled to eat them?  Am I entitled to them?  If so, then I am his master, and he—my slave. 

Hmm…I like it!  Okay.  Let’s go with that. *sarcasm

What if Syne was nice (you’ll have to use your imagination for this)?   Big Grin

Imagine Syne deciding to be generous and giving me a few of his apples. Yay!  I’m totally happy.  Gee, thanks, Syne, but then C C comes over for her usual cup of joe, and shows me the apples that Syne gave her.  They’re way bigger and juicer than the ones he gave me.  Well, now I’m not so happy.   Angry

Since he mentioned Viktor Frankl, what Frankl actually said was to put the question (the meaning of life) in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to a chess champion:  Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?  There's simply no such thing as the best or even a good move apart from a particular situation in a game and the particular personality of one’s opponent.  The same holds for human existence.  One should not search for an abstract meaning of life. He did believe, though that people could suffer through unimaginable horrors through their personal concepts of meaning, rather than happiness itself.

The academic performance may be the worst predictor of living a satisfactory life like he said, but Viktor Frankl thought that those who lived a rich intellectual life suffered less internal pain because they were able to escape their surroundings through rich thoughts.

Nietzsche saw the mere pursuit of happiness, defined here as that which gives pleasure, as a dull waste of human life. Declaring: "Mankind does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does", referencing the English philosophy of Utilitarianism, and its focus on total happiness.

No offense intended, Stryder, C2.  Blush

Nietzsche was instead dedicated to the idea of finding meaning in life. He suggested the Ubermensch, and his creation of meaning in life, as an alternative to the Last Man, and offered us the idea of people who were willing to undertake great suffering in the name of a goal they have set, as examples. Can we imagine that Michelangelo found painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel pleasant? Nikola Tesla declared that his celibacy was necessary to his work, but complained of his loneliness his entire life.

Is that happiness? If these great minds wanted happiness in itself, would they have done what they did?

No, says Nietzsche. They would not. Instead, they chose to pursue meaning, and found it. This is what people really want.
[1]
Reply
#3
RainbowUnicorn Offline
60% to 30%

considering that while the 60% was prevailent the 90% didnt know of the 99% of crime that the other 99% of society angaged in.

thus a statistic based on a false perception is a false statistic.

soo.. i am having a real issue with trying to look past this "factualisation construct".

Generically speaking information gives rise to paranoia when fear is taught as the primary leverage point of the unknown and the lack of knowledge.
This is modelled to children by their parents.

Totally agree with him Re mental illness of competing social classes of childhood mental health.
Teaching children to value themselves by comparing themselves against others in a capitalist metaphor is extreemly psychologically damaging.
It breeds a base line of psychopathy & self actualisation co-dependency of individuation..
Reply
#4
stryder Offline
My personal unachievable goal (and therefore purpose) is "complete freedom".

It's something that nobody has ever really had as there is always some sort of hierarchy either dictating terms of your internment or someone trying to move you along with an "invisible handed" shoo. I'd considered the philosophy previously in-depth and rationalised that freedom itself is a worthy pursuit even if it will likely be completely unachievable thanks to all the megalomaniacs and Sociopaths.

The point however is that my perspective and rationale will be somewhat different from someone else, that will likely have built an entirely different psychological way of perceiving purpose. (Do we get cleaned up to look good, or cleaned up to not smell bad?)
Reply
#5
Secular Sanity Offline
(Aug 7, 2017 03:26 AM)stryder Wrote: My personal unachievable goal (and therefore purpose) is "complete freedom".

It's something that nobody has ever really had as there is always some sort of hierarchy either dictating terms of your internment or someone trying to move you along with an "invisible handed" shoo. I'd considered the philosophy previously in-depth and rationalised that freedom itself is a worthy pursuit even if it will likely be completely unachievable thanks to all the megalomaniacs and Sociopaths.

Objectivism resonates somewhat with me. It advocates putting one’s life above all other values. Ayn Rand said that men should not be considered a sacrificial animal to be immolated for the sake of the 'public good'. That a man has a right to exist for his own sake, but a soldier has to risk his life, or even die if need be.

However, freedom is necessary to live a rational life, increase our lifespan, and allow us to pursue our values, which are worth defending. So, it’s not unreasonable to defend liberty. If in fact we are defending liberty.

stryder Wrote:Do we get cleaned up to look good, or cleaned up to not smell bad?

Men; to not smell bad.  Women; both.
Reply
Reply
#7
Zinjanthropos Offline
Not sure what it is or if there is one but I do think my purpose is to not worry about having a purpose.

The implication is that of a designer universe or Earth and that I should be deemed satisfactory by some code of conduct should I correctly figure out what my purpose is. 

I assume some of the most successful at realizing their purpose have been tyrants. If their purpose is fulfilled and you die as a result then I guess dying was your purpose.
Reply
#8
confused2 Offline
Rule 1
You have to clean up your own shit.
Reply
#9
RainbowUnicorn Offline
thinking of Brian Greenes' documentary, if we were to run life backwards from the point of death, would it make sense ?
probably not.

Do we give purpose to reality, or Does Reality give purpose to us ?

if your purpose is more than what you do, then err-go, what you do is not your purpose.
Thus is purpose a reality or a philisophical dimension of thought ?
is the very nature of the premise of thought of purose defined as spiritualism ?
When we ask ourselves "do i have a purpose" am i engaging in a philisophical spiritual discussion ?
Reply
#10
Secular Sanity Offline
(Aug 7, 2017 11:27 PM)confused2 Wrote: Rule 1
You have to clean up your own shit.

Rule 2
Don’t be a snob!  
(A snob is anybody who takes a small part of you, and uses that to come to a complete vision of who you are. That is snobbery.)

And once again, it’s your turn.  You have to come up with Rule #3.  Big Grin

"Ultimately, human happiness isn’t the result of any plan or grand strategy. We’re not programmed to be happy. Like all adaptations, it’s the result of countless mutations, over millennia of trial and error. Our happiness is the product of the same forces that created tulips, giraffes, and viruses. It just happened that our chances of survival were enhanced by finding satisfaction in a job well done."


What is the evolutionary purpose of happiness?

Happiness and early humans

Like all evolutionary adaptations, happiness first occurred as a genetic variation, but persisted because it helped us stay alive.
Happiness describes a range of emotions, from pleasure to glee to contentment. But in the context of evolution, the happiness that proved most useful was the tingle of delight we feel when we’re met with unexpected good fortune.

That sensation is fueled by dopamine, a chemical in the brain associated with motivation and reward-seeking behavior. Scientists who study dopamine know it increases when we’re pleasantly surprised, but not when we’re merely satisfied.

Survival back then was often binary, where one person’s gain was another’s loss, particularly when it came to finding mates. As a result, we’re primed to take pleasure in the downfall of others, the form of happiness we know as schadenfreude, according to David Buss, a psychology professor at the University of Texas.

Schadenfreude as survival mechanism
BTW, the English word for this is epicaricacy.

Similarly, some manifestations of happiness that benefitted early humans are now detrimental to our emotional health.

"The way that evolution by selection works is that it’s inherently competitive," says Buss. “The two ways to achieve it are to enhance ourselves or to facilitate our enemies’ falling. It’s not a rosy picture of human nature, but it’s who we are.”

While schadenfreude and similar emotions might have helped our ancestors survive, they’re less useful now, when cultural mores urge us to be charitable toward rivals, and frown upon delighting in others’ misery.

The power of pain

For most of us, unhappiness is a more powerful driver than happiness. Because unhappiness motivates us to make changes, we’re hard-wired not to remain too happy for long.

In a series of experiments, psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky demonstrated that we feel the sting of loss more than we enjoy the gain of the same amount. “Pain is more urgent than pleasure,” they wrote in an influential1991 paper that helped Kahneman win a Nobel prize.

That’s probably because unhappiness was ultimately more useful for survival. Unhappiness, and its cousins misery and pain, could prevent starvation and dismemberment, while happiness was a more subtle goad toward the better things in life.

The pursuit of happiness

Not all forms of happiness can be explained by evolution, particularly more recent manifestations. Culture plays an important role in adaptation, as different groups adopt different behaviors that help them navigate their unique worlds, Barkow said.

Likewise, understandings of happiness have changed over time. How different societies viewed happiness helped shape their culture and survival strategies.

In ancient China and Greece, happiness was associated with luck and good fortune, a result of external factors that couldn’t be controlled. Over time, as humans gained more mastery over their living conditions, happiness came to be perceived as something an individual could control.

In a 2015 study, researchers led by Shigehiro Oishi of the University of Virginia looked at how happiness was used in every State of the Union address made by US presidents to that point. Early presidents talked about “happiness” as good fortune and prosperity, while more recent uses took on the sense of personal well-being and life satisfaction. The authors theorize that as the US and its citizens grew more prosperous, "people’s perception of personal control in life also increased, and made the fortune-based definition of happiness look obsolete."

In countries where happiness is understood as the result of individual actions, such as the US, people are more likely to make decisions to pursue it. In countries like Japan or Russia, where happiness is understood to be reliant upon fortune, decisions are more likely to be made for reasons other than to maximize happiness.


"We should focus in on our ideas, and make sure that we own them; that we are truly the authors of our own ambitions. Because it's bad enough not getting what you want, but it's even worse to have an idea of what it is you want, and find out, at the end of the journey, that it isn't, in fact, what you wanted all along."—Alain de Botton


Never before have expectations been so high about what human beings can achieve with their lifespan. We're told, from many sources, that anyone can achieve anything. We've done away with the caste system, we are now in a system where anyone can rise to any position they please. And it's a beautiful idea. Along with that is a kind of spirit of equality; we're all basically equal. There are no strictly defined hierarchies. There is one really big problem with this, and that problem is envy. Envy, it's a real taboo to mention envy, but if there's one dominant emotion in modern society, that is envy. And it's linked to the spirit of equality.

And yet, they're not. So there's a spirit of equality combined with deep inequality, which can make for a very stressful situation.

There's a real correlation between a society that tells people that they can do anything, and the existence of low self-esteem. So that's another way in which something quite positive can have a nasty kickback. There is another reason why we might be feeling more anxious --about our careers, about our status in the world today, than ever before. And it's, again, linked to something nice.

You know, in the Middle Ages, in England, when you met a very poor person, that person would be described as an "unfortunate" -- literally, somebody who had not been blessed by fortune, an unfortunate. Nowadays, particularly in the United States, if you meet someone at the bottom of society, they may unkindly be described as a "loser." There's a real difference between an unfortunate and a loser, and that shows 400 years of evolution in society and our belief in who is responsible for our lives. It's no longer the gods, it's us. We're in the driving seat.

The other thing about modern society and why it causes this anxiety, is that we have nothing at its center that is non-human. We are the first society to be living in a world where we don't worship anything other than ourselves. We think very highly of ourselves, and so we should; we’ve put people on the Moon, done all sorts of extraordinary things. And so we tend to worship ourselves. Our heroes are human heroes. That's a very new situation. Most other societies have had, right at their center, the worship of something transcendent: a god, a spirit, a natural force, the universe, whatever it is -- something else that is being worshiped. We’ve slightly lost the habit of doing that, which is, I think, why we're particularly drawn to nature. Not for the sake of our health, though it's often presented that way, but because it's an escape from the human anthill. It's an escape from our own competition, and our own dramas. And that's why we enjoy looking at glaciers and oceans, and contemplating the Earth from outside its perimeters, etc. We like to feel in contact with something that is non-human, and that is so deeply important to us.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)