What is life?

[pilgrimshost]

It is probably time to get back to the original qustion, What is life? So does life have meaning, do we have a purpose in the universe? Are we the centre of it (hypertheticly),where we are in a crusial persison to think about it, to contemplate it? If we are the only things in the universe that can comprehend it-''where are we and why are we here?'' style;then is that actually providing an important role of which,done properly is it what we are ment to do? On another thread there is the discussion that we are made out of the same things as everything else ''cause we are all made of stars'' ,if you will, then would that mean that we are the consiousness of the universe?

I dont know why but is it a coinsidence that we can comprehend, or as it would seem, only we can? Though I dont know whyso dont ask,thank you!

[NoAngst]

Perhaps in lieu of repeatedly asking the question, for which there is no answer and for anyone to offer up any reply which happens to come to mind, it would be more fruitful (read: philosophical) to ask why people ask the question in the first place, and in so doing shed some light on the original question.

[pilgrimshost]

Actually, it would seem that we are existing in a 'universe' with the ability to ask the question 'why are we here?',so it is more to the point that we ask this question, rather 'why do we ask the question at all?'! Though in itself it is also important. You may not care for this consept but as long as one person does, it gives it purpose.

[NoAngst]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

Actually, it would seem that we are existing in a 'universe' with the ability to ask the question 'why are we here?',so it is more to the point that we ask this question, rather 'why do we ask the question at all?'! Though in itself it is also important. You may not care for this consept but as long as one person does, it gives it purpose.

As you wish. Let us know when you find the answer.

[pilgrimshost]

There are some areas in this forum i dont go in, either I have nothing to say or Im not interested. So whats your excuse?

[NoAngst]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

There are some areas in this forum i dont go in, either I have nothing to say or Im not interested. So whats your excuse?

I do not need excuse. I clearly stated my interest in the question. I also stated that asking the question was not productive, other than for contemplative value (which is not the same thing as finding the answer). If you think asking the question is otherwise productive, by all means have at it. I only asked that you let us know when you find the answer, if for no other reason than to give me a great big nanner-nanner-nanner.

[pilgrimshost]

You are right though i would say it is not just to ask the question here but to investigate other areas also, religion, science etc. Ultimatly answers will be found in one shape or another! Im going out now so catch up with you later.

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by NoAngst

I'm not sure I do follow. My point was only that (1) to deny the existence of anything not attended by sentient beings is scientifically false, e.g., that gravity, Coriolis and dinosaurs did not and do not require human attendance to obtain;

But nobody contests whether or not it is "scientifically false". One was already familiar enough with the prejudice of the scientific axiom.

This being a Philosophy Forum, the issue would be whether or not the axiom itself is false.

It no good to suppose that it is not metaphysical to presume to know that something exists without the attendance of a human awareness to witness the fact, but not metaphysical to presume to know that something does not exist without the attendance of a human awareness to witness the fact.

That is heads you win, tails I lose.

Whether or not you prefer to regard it as being a scientific or a metaphysical issue, either way it is the very same issue in philosophical terms.

-- RH.

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

Actually, it would seem that we are existing in a 'universe' with the ability to ask the question 'why are we here?',so it is more to the point that we ask this question, rather 'why do we ask the question at all?'! Though in itself it is also important. You may not care for this consept but as long as one person does, it gives it purpose.

More to which point?

Do you believe in free will?

It is odd to me, irrational, for those who want to know why we are here to nevertheless believe in free will.

What is free will for except to choose a purpose?



-- RH.

[NoAngst]

Originally Posted by perplexity

But nobody contests whether or not it is "scientifically false". One was already familiar enough with the prejudice of the scientific axiom.

This being a Philosophy Forum, the issue would be whether or not the axiom itself is false.

It no good to suppose that it is not metaphysical to presume to know that something exists without the attendance of a human awareness to witness the fact, but not metaphysical to presume to know that something does not exist without the attendance of a human awareness to witness the fact.

That is heads you win, tails I lose.

Whether or not you prefer to regard it as being a scientific or a metaphysical issue, either way it is the very same issue in philosophical terms.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about. Familiar with the prejudice or falsity of what scientific axiom? And you keep mindlessly iterating your insistence on human attendance as if repetition alone will make it so. It won't. You will have to dispute the claim that human attendance is quite beside the point, that natural laws and causality obtain regardless of human attendance, and obtained for billions of years before such attendance. You have yet to address this. This is not at all a metaphysical issue, despite your errant attempts to make it one. If it is a metaphysical issue, you will certainly have to say more than that you say so.