What do you keep living for? Is there a specific person, goal, or idea that you work for? Is there no meaning to life in your opinion?
Context: I’ve been reading Camus and Sartre, and thinking about how their ideas interact with hard determinism.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m not religious or spiritual so I’m a pure hedonist. I work so that I can maintain a comfortable life for my wife and I with vacations and other treats. In my 30s but not very interested in having children; might be tempted to adopt in my 40s but will need to see where I am at that point in my life.
Essentially the goal is to be happy as a clam (that is a strange phrase now I consider it). It would be nice to author something to leave my name for future generations but I kind of get that from contributing to open source projects when I get the chance.
About 20 years ago, I was walking through a city centre with a friend, on the way to catch a train. A couple of Mormons tried to stop us, asking, “Have you ever thought about the purpose of life?”
Barely breaking stride, I shouted out, “Hot sweaty man sex!”
I don’t consider that to be the purpose of life1, but remembering the look on their faces helps keep me grounded whenever I’m inclined to consider questions that cannot be answered.
That said, my resolution to the conflict between free will and determinism is to assume assume that ‘truth’ operates on a principle of equivalence. That’s to say, if two models generate the equivalent outcomes, they are equivalently ‘true’. The universe we observe could have deterministic rules that give rise to the same observable outcomes as one in which we have absolute free will, in which case the two models are equivalent. It would make no sense to endow one with a greater truth than the other.
That’s a slightly difference definition of ‘truth’ than is commonly accepted, but it works for me.
1: It’s just a nice bonus.
I don’t think I necessarily agree with the way you present truth, but it’s an interesting line of thinking. I do definitely agree with your opinion on the bonuses life has to offer!
Meaning is something imposed on reality by consciousness, not something necessarily inherent to existence itself. I am here because here is where I am. What that means to me is that I should have a good time while the opportunity persists because all evidence seems to insist that the chance will not last forever.
So, eat. Be merry. Protect that which moves me and those who can not protect themselves. Help others to do the same. That’s the meaning of life to me.
The purpose of life is not served by fretting about what its purpose is.
It’s a bit like sitting on a roller coaster rubbing your chin and wondering how to monetize the experience. Just put your hands up and scream. It’s nice.
For the meaning in life to is explore and play with my best friend…my wife. Even my career has switched to something that feels more like play than a grind for a corporation who enjoys the lion’s share of my labour.
I currently live to make life a little better for animals and other people. And when I have time left over I use creative outlets to create stuff.
I keep living at this point simply because God wants me alive. If He didn’t, He would have killed me by now. When I was in a really dark place (I’m doing better now), I realised that killing myself was pointless, because if it was my time to die, God would take me from this life regardless. So God must still have a plan and uses for me and thus, I should still be alive, and that’s meaning enough for the fact that my body continues to operate.
I’ve got a lot of respect for theists, and would truly love to be convinced of this sort of perspective. Thanks for bringing it to the table!
Thank you! I don’t want to seem pushy or pressuring, but what eventually convinced me was the historicity of Jesus Christ (as opposed to scientific arguments, etc) and it kind of hinged off of that.
Thank you, will give it a try! I wouldn’t be able to call myself a nonresistant nonbeliever if I resisted this :)
Okay, I’ve watched the videos, but unfortunately they don’t fix my main issue with the bible, that being there are no contemporary (as in written within the subsequent decades), non-Christian sources for any miracle alleged in the bible. In particular, the dead rising and walking around the towns on Good Friday as talked of in the Gospels isn’t recorded in any Roman source we have from the time, and I think that such an act would have been recorded. It seems to me that it is more likely that these stories of miracles survived with Christians for a few hundred years, before being disseminated into the popular account of Jesus’ life as Christianity grew in popularity.
They also don’t fix any of my other problems with Christianity, such as the problem of evil, principally relating to animal suffering, or divine hiddenness. Still, I feel more informed than before, so thank you!
Matthew 27:51-54
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”
I struggled with the tomb openings as well. An interpretation I’ve heard for it is that they were spiritually resurrected, to show that they were free from Hades and appeared in spirit (Christians commonly refer to this as “The Harrowing of Hell”) to show that. There isn’t much of an indication that they were there for too long - the tombs breaking open could have been a result of the earthquake as well.
I think it is important to remember how records survived- There is no historical written record of Pompeii (which likely held a lot of high ranking Romans) being destroyed. Just a single reference to it by Pliny the Younger. It was likely witnessed by a quarter of a million people, though, yet all we know about it is archaeology. So I believe it is actually completely possible that the only written record we have of the saints breaking free from the tombs in a rebellious city on the edge of the empire is from Matthew. John even said more stuff happened that he couldn’t even write down.
John 21:25 ESV
Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
It is also worth noting a similar objection existed to the existence of Pontius Pilate until 1961 when they found a rock with his name carved onto it, and from there it was treated as historical fact.
I believe how stuff was recorded then compared to now differs greatly. Something happens in a village here and several articles are written and published for the world to see. While back then, someone had to write it down on paper, and for that to survive until now the paper had to either not get destroyed over 200 years, or be copied several times.
I suppose my issue there is that you have shown the reasons I believe in the other events, but not in Jesus’ miracles: we have archeological evidence for Pompeii, and a separate source for Pontias Pilate. If Pompeii had just been the offhand reference by Pliny then I don’t know if it would be so easy to believe. But I’ve grown up able to literally see the ash covered bodies. And I think you’ve summed up the issue with Pilate exactly, that he was only known of from one source, until we had another corroborating it.
Should any extra evidence present itself for the rising of the dead on Good Friday, I’ll be a lot more likely to come around, but I still don’t think that it can be appropriately corooborated.
I really appreciate you taking the time to talk this out, I’m definitely something of a bible novice so your help is very appreciated :)
The thing is, what archaeological evidence could you produce for Jesus’ miracles? Same with dead people walking about for a few days. In terms of social status, Jesus was a peasant. Possibly the stepson of a carpentry business owner (since He seems to be well educated and referred to as a carpenter) so not growing up living in dirt, per say, but was still just an ordinary dude. I’ve heard some people make a case for the Shroud of Turin, but I wouldn’t base my faith on it. As people also have opposite arguments and it kind of randomly appeared in like the fourteenth century. In terms of archaeology, I believe the best thing we have is evidence for the Church itself- followers of Jesus. If you don’t mind me posting another YouTube video, here you go
Thanks for the video, will check it out!
I think that my main issue is that this stuff is just straight up supernatural, to the point where I would need hard evidence, for example contemporary accounts from people neutral towards or opposing Christianity before I could believe it. I’m not going to commit to believing in something unless there is appropriate evidence for it, and Jesus’ miracles just happened too long ago to be verifiable.
I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to me about this!
Not to bully your belief here but how would you justify this with the fact that God allows many really bad people to live? Just curious of understanding this mindset and I hope this doesn’t offend you.
I tried to justify this (if one insists on the existence of a god), through the argument that dangerous and bad things exist in nature as well, such as storms, lightning, floodings, earthquakes, and chimps that go to war with each other etc. and likewise, violent and bad things exist among humans.
However, I cant really convince myself that it’s comparable. Actual evil did not really exist before be came along and started torturing each other. (The church and christians have been through many iterations of hard questions and tough answers to their own riddles, and overall, I think it has been a sum positive for humanity, in trying to explain, and to figure out the question of evil in general.)
So no, I don’t have a, from the hip, justification from god, why evil people would still exist. Perhaps the world just is a better place, with snakes in it, than without. It gives us something good to do?
I can however confidently state that really bad people have been here among humanity many times before, and they have all, in one way or another, left again, and somehow we manage to sustain a world, that is continuously improving and trying to become a better and better place. Getting rid of bad people, snakes, and natural dangers.
I know that there are serious crises and problems we still have to solve, but we tend to forget all the past evils that we have defeated. We are not being actively overrun by mongols from the east, and not every family loses several small children before they reach the age of 5. Most people have enough, and we still keep working to make sure that fewer and fewer people will suffer in the future.
Ngl that’s a really unsatisfying position imo. There are and have been people who had nothing but suffered in their entire existence with zero meaning like slave babies born with extreme deformities. This thought exercise completely dispels any idea of a present god in my point of view.
Yeah I agree. There are some absolutely ridiculous explanations and excuses, to answer plotholes like that. “The Lord works in mysterious ways”. We have more than 1500 years of made up explanations, to solve made up statements.
Quite a few reasons I can give:
Through bad people, good can still happen. For example, the passion narrative. Bad people caused the execution of Jesus, but through that, we believe we can get salvation
Some people got a positive opportunity out of wars, COVID, etc (The lockdown may have saved me, it pulled me out of a dark place)
God is patient. Bad people can still repent and come to God.
Bad things on earth are actually eternally insignificant if you believe that eventually all of it will be wiped out, which plays into the patience aspect. Just say you’re in heaven for two thousand years, you’re not really going to worry anymore about 100 years you spent on earth that were absolutely horrible.
These are just my thoughts on the matter. A lot of people do have varied responses to the “problem of evil”
Ecclesiastes is a good read. I found “Everything is meaningless” to be very liberating. The book does go on to say what is good: to love God of course, but also to eat, drink and enjoy your work. But the whole thing is worth a read.
Im not sure. I stay for my family and husband and my animals.
But I wouldn’t mind dying. Eternal rest from all the grind. Even if there is nothing after death. It would be nice to just sleep forever.
Ive been lucky to have discovered Stoicism early in life and that what has been driving me for decades now!
To put it shortly Stoicism focuses on self growth with things like identifying natural human virtues (need for knowledge, justice, temperance, courage) and focusing life around improving those. This is expressed through a princicle called dichotomy of control which says that there are things that are out of our control like death that we shouldn’t focus on and things that are like natural virtues that are something we can do to improve upon.
It also deconstructed and included all of the cool contemporary ideas like mindfulness and being cosmopolitan two millenia ago so its a really great suite of natural philosophies that survived the test of time.
Stoicism is also low key Idealist as in your natural perception of your own virtues and state is the only real thing that matters which is what makes this ideology so much more freeing. You don’t judge yourself against some mystical ideal but to your own perception of purpose and growth.
It’s an easy, frictionless and a highly rewarding way to live :)
It’s interesting, I think I’ve tried engaging with Stoicism before, but it feels to me that it kind of ignores how sometimes the romantic should take control? I can’t remember which Stoicist (Epictetus I think?) said that we should be so detached that the death of a child should feel like a glass breaking, but I don’t think I would be able to rationalise and internalise that personally. Do you think there’s space for strong feelings in Stoicism?
That’s a common misunderstanding and Stoicism is not about detachment. The quote you’re referring is mostly a thought exercise to illustrate that dwelling on past is unproductive even in extreme circumstances.
Though contemporary Stoicism acknowledges importance of ritual and grief but it still has to be within reasonable context of dichotomy of control as in you can’t change the outcome no matter how hard you grief and you’re just losing finite minutes of your life but you can spend this time to fairly honor the event and memories.
Temperance is a key virtue here and its heavily inspired by Aristotel’s Golden Mean which says that extremes are really inefficient and should be avoided at all times.
As for strong feelings - Stoicism has nothing against them either. Justice is one of the virtues and its really impossible to get to a just conclusion without strong feelings like sympathy. Though, just like Buddhism, Stoics practice mindfulness and have to choose to go to strong feelings not obey. This is again due to dichotomy of control where thoughts and feelings just appear and we can’t do anything here to stop that but we can choose how we react once we process them!
Stoicism is a very powerful framework cause it doesn’t really tell you what to do exactly just gives you a logical framework based on human nature. It doesn’t mean you becoming a robot - quite the opposite - you should become more human not being hijacked by unfair processes.
Wow, really interesting, thank you!
Stoicism can sometimes read like a very early form of cognitive behavioral therapy
You’re not far off - it was put together by dudes who just wanted to socialize and talk philosophy and metaphysic on a porch which is called Stoa thus literally Stoics.
CBT is actually heavily inspired by Stoicism and the author openly credits Stoicism and especially Epictetus :)
For me “it’s complicated”. I live with passive suicidal ideation on a daily basis. Some days are better than others, but generally speaking I don’t want to actually kill myself. However, the idea of being dead does not bother me as it ought other people.
That being said, I do stick around especially for my two sons. I could not bring myself to not be a part of their lives; especially right now as they are 12 and 10. I don’t want to rob them of their father, and I do want to see them through to when they have a life of their own and have their own family (whatever that may look like for them).
As for meaning in life: ultimately everything we do is only for the living. When I die, my life only matters to the people whom I was closest (my kids). Beyond that, who cares right? I have no delusions that I’ll be remembered by anyone else.
But I do have other things I’d like to achieve: find another love of my life, travel the world more, complete as much of my bucket list as possible (e.g. skydiving, bungee jumping, scuba diving, etc).
I have so many goals man. I wanna travel the world, meat new people, stay in one of those hostels or that website where you can work to stay. I wanna scuba dive, rock climb, surf, run marathons, hikes and all sorts of stuff before I get too old to do anything fun.
meat new people
Found the 65 year old planning a trip to SEA
I do wanna go to SEA though. Cause they got good scuba dive spots
Well, Camus and Sartre are not exactly about finding meaning, but dealing with the world with no inherent meaning.
No advice here, but I suppose it would be rather difficult to argue for objective meaning of life under atheism, which seems prevalent here on lemmy, so I would consider the feasibility of the existentialist project, in creating meaning or living with the condradiction between our desire of meaning and the meaningless world.
I want to see my planted apple tree bear fruit for the first time (it’s looking good this year so far!), and then I want to try splicing in a branch of my neighbours cherry tree, and then I want to keep building gradually to have a mutant tree with all kinds of fruit throughout the season. I’ll be the creator of my own Tree of Life.
Small goals, small joys, small triumphs - it’s what’ll make my life grand, I believe.
It’s a great relief to come to the realization that there is no grand inherent meaning to life, and no need for one. No constant worrying about what the meaning is and how much time you have left to “figure it out”, no need to feel like there’s some big thing you have to accomplish, no pressure to be someone important or make an impact on the world. No need to find the correct religion or moral code. It’s simple: we’re all (humans and animals) just trying to live our lives in peace and find happiness, so as for goals: Live and let live. Try to not hurt each other, and better yet, help each other–helping1 someone isn’t always easy but it’s a good feeling. It creates a feeling of meaning/purpose better than most anything else I can think of.
1: besides doing some task for someone, it could also be as simple as a smile, a kind word, or just listening/being there.
