Notices

View Poll Results: What Is Better?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • No meaning

    6 60.00%
  • False meaning

    1 10.00%
  • I honestly don't know

    3 30.00%
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: What Is Better?

  1. #1 What Is Better? 
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Is it better fool yourself in order get purpose? Does this cause a consolation that everything's going to be allright no matter what happens? Is that a good thing? Or is it better with no meaning at all? Only a cold reality where there's no purpose at all, only random events?

    We humans who crave after meaning and purpose, are we better off with or without it?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    there is a meaning though


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Fooling yourself is not necessary.

    What if your very purpose is to not fool yourself?

    Your statement comes from the idea that the naive only see purpose due to their lack of understanding of a purposeless life through their own means and consequential reality; and that the people who are aware of the truths in life, know that there isn't a purpose to themselves, and that life is therefore pointless. But what if the intelligent people make a purpose in life for themselves as a way to counter the lack of purpose that is otherwise present without taking action through your abilities obtained from the realization?
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    A=lack of knowledge of meaning
    B=Knowledge of lack of meaning
    C=Detrimental effects synthesized through knowledge
    D=Intellectual enlightenment gained by knowledge

    1. A negative sign before letter indicates negative effect.
    2. Letters are only used to differentiate variables; they all have the same base.

    C is only a factor towards your personality and emotion on life; if you do not let it effect your reasoning abilities, then it won't.

    D not only can positively effect your personality, but it also has an exponential effect in the way that it can improve every reasoning ability that you posses, and therefore will continue to posses. D=2(E), 2(F), 2(G), etc...hence the addition of H,I,J,K, etc... and their exponential amelioration. Which is why I give D a 2, due to its double effect.


    -A+B=-C+2D

    -A+B=1D

    B/D=what you wish for it to do for you.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    I didn't know philosophy could be reduced to a set of linear equations in four variables. Well done, my good fellow!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Hmmm, I had hoped this thread would be longer...

    Anyhow, meaning depends on perception, therefore you can't ask life what the meaning is. You can't ask the universe either, you can only ask yourself, and since meaning depends on the individual, it is mostly based upon personal convictions. That's why assumed there to be no meaning at all, thus I gave people two options and asked them what was best. A total failiure on my part I must say
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Well I personally would prefer no meaning. I like the idea that we search for meaning and we can come to a conclusion that there actually is no meaning. I prefer this than to have false meaning. I don't know what it is about truth but I like the idea of it.
    If truth about life is that this is all we have and nothing else, and us knowing this truth will bring us despair and loss of hope etc. then so be it, IMO much better than false meaning that there is a lot to life after we are here on earth and we are all "happy". I'd be much happier knowing that there is nothing after this if it is indeed true. My happiness would lie in truth I suppose.
    Maybe a bit off but...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Are you guys suggesting that meaning is necessarily false?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Not necessarily-the point is that people are greedy in many ways, and will tend to think certain things regardless of the truth. People like us though, tend to be less selfish and will see the truth for what it is regardless of any superficial detriments.

    If meaning is found by a moron (99.999 % of mankind) then it is VERY VERY VERY likely false; but if true meaning is found by people like ourselves, it is likely it is true and objective meaning without any ulterior motives. Such as my previous post...I have given myself meaning through a mathematical method that is 99% objective.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    I don't know how to respond to this without sounding insulting. I don't intend to be. However, I do have to say that you are making some pretty grandiose claims in your last two posts which lack any sort of evident justification other than, "I like science and therefore I am right."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Me? So then your first response was sarcasm?

    I like science and therefore I am right? Wtf? Did I ever insinuate such a thing? THIS IS METAPHYSICS, not science.

    I do not like to offer condescending explanations since I tend to follow the idea of, "To try to convince a fool makes two".

    Either you understand my reasoning or you do not; you cannot break it down very much.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Me? So then your first response was sarcasm?
    ...yes.

    I like science and therefore I am right? Wtf? Did I ever insinuate such a thing? THIS IS METAPHYSICS, not science.
    In your second post, you suggested that "people like ourselves" approach meaning in an objective and bias-free manner. I took "people like ourselves" to be members of The Science Forum, and the trait that ties us together is an enjoyment of science. So I inferred that "people like ourselves" may as well mean "people who like science". And you gave no reason why such people are more likely to reach objective truths; you only juxtaposed them against "most people", "morons". So what sort of conclusion am I supposed to draw? What is your reasoning if it is not, "I believe that people who take an interest in science are more likely to reach objective truth than others"?

    I do not like to offer condescending explanations since I tend to follow the idea of, "To try to convince a fool makes two".
    I may have to follow your advice.

    Either you understand my reasoning or you do not; you cannot break it down very much.
    You first post is devoid of reasoning--you state a result without any justification. I already dissected your second post and extracted all reason I could find out of it. If I am missing something, perhaps it's because it's in your head and not in your words. Or maybe it's still in the oven?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    When it comes to meaning, I'd say there's little difference between intelligent people and stupid people. Meaning has to do with feelings, and all feelings are selfish in one way. You can basically do whatever you want with math (emphasis on want), but I wouldn't call it anymore meaningful than a fools meaning. In other words, both are equally valid, the only difference is perception. Though, as allready stated, feelings are selfish, not necessarily valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Are you guys suggesting that meaning is necessarily false?
    It's true for the induvidual, but not necessarily true in reality. Can you give a good argument that anything in this world is meaningful? Feelings make things meaningful, but is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    I would agree that meaning is an inherently subjective thing. Unless you believe in, say, God, whose subjective experience is objective reality or, more generally, you believe in the existence of a distinguished subjective perspective which coincides with objective reality, it doesn't make sense to talk about "objective meaning". And, because of this, objective meaning doesn't exist, in the same way that a circle doesn't have corners.

    This, however, does not make meaning false. The truth or falsity of some bit of meaning depends upon the subjective frame of reference in which it's interpreted. You're right that this basically means that any piece of meaning can be true from one point of view and false from another. However, your argument is this: take this meaning, pull it back to objective reality. It's can't be true, because it's not consistently true across subjective realities. Thus it's false. The error is pulling meaning back to objective reality. You can't unless objective reality corresponds to some subjective point of view.

    I would then state the possibilities are: objective meaning exists, and meaning can take on absolute truth values; or objective meaning doesn't exist, and meaning is consequently undecidable and, in particular, not false.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Weak perceptive ability once again!!! You only look at the obvious and do not have the ability to go beyond standard perception. I wasn't insinuating that the people here are scientifically inclined, and therefore prove part of my point; I was saying that people here have INSENTIVE to learn, in any form or matter...and that insentive alone, even without having gained knoledge from it, is a great trait to have. That is what will lead you to learn and formulate more logical decisons.

    Yes!!! There is an objective choice to most things! Weak minded people though do not have the mental capacity to formulate certain things, and therefore think that most things are subjective; they are lazy!! They think, "Hey, lets just call it a day and make it subjective! That way, more intlligent people can't say things that are definitively beyond my abilities of perception!!!"

    Laziness is one of the biggest downfalls of mankind. :x
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: What Is Better? 
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    We humans who crave after meaning and purpose, are we better off with or without it?
    It depends on the context, and since your poll doesn't give that, I can't make a determination. In some cases it is better to believe in something that's false. In other cases it's not.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Weak perceptive ability once again!!! You only look at the obvious and do not have the ability to go beyond standard perception.
    Your ad hominem attacks do nothing to diminish the fact that your previous posts are making statements without any arguments to back them up. And you're really going to have to do a lot better than that to convince me or anyone that your ABC's mean anything.

    Luckily, you've abandoned this practice...

    I wasn't insinuating that the people here are scientifically inclined, and therefore prove part of my point; I was saying that people here have INSENTIVE to learn, in any form or matter...and that insentive alone, even without having gained knoledge from it, is a great trait to have. That is what will lead you to learn and formulate more logical decisons.
    That's more like it. And I'm glad you cleared up what you meant.

    Everyone has incentive to learn. I think you mean desire, though, and assuming this, I agree that this is a great trait to have. And I would agree it encourages us to make more informed decisions, but I don't think it inherently makes us more logical. Also, I think you underestimate the intellectual curiosity of the average person--I mean, 99.999% is absurd and surely an intentional exaggeration on your part, but personal experience suggests to me that most people I have met are not morons, and a large percentage would classify themselves as intellectually curious. Maybe it's just the circles of which I'm a part? I don't know.

    There are more factors than simply "the desire to learn" that factor into one's ability to make good decisions. The first thing that springs to mind is emotional stability. And self-discipline. And motivation. I don't think we here on this forum have monopolies on any of these traits, and so I think our desire to learn doesn't single us out as the world's best decision makers.

    But we're not really talking about decisions, are we, we're talking about meaning, and I still don't think you've presented any argument or evidence that people with the desire to learn are any better to determine the objective truth (whatever that means) than others. I'd say we go about it in a different way than others do, and that we prefer this way, but that's our belief, not an objective fact.

    Yes!!! There is an objective choice to most things! Weak minded people though do not have the mental capacity to formulate certain things, and therefore think that most things are subjective; they are lazy!! They think, "Hey, lets just call it a day and make it subjective! That way, more intlligent people can't say things that are definitively beyond my abilities of perception!!!"
    Some of the most important philosophers of the past four centuries were the individuals who challenged the idea of the objective--George Berkeley and David Hume spring to mind. They'd flip your argument on its head and say the weak-minded people are those who are satisfied with and don't challenge their perceptions.

    In any case, I agree, and I'd say there are correct decisions to most of the choices that life presents to us. (I also think such decisions are, to a large part, determined by society, which makes them pretty arbitrary, but whatever, I don't mind playing the game.) I still think we're getting away from the original intent of the thread, though, which is the nature of meaning.

    Returning to the beginning of my reply, please, do not resort to attacking me on an intellectual basis. I assure you that I'm pretty well capable of understanding what you're saying. Actually, no, you're going to say I clearly didn't understand what you were saying before and, thus, this is false. Let me phrase it this way: I'm pretty well capable of deducing the most sensible interpretation of the words you're typing. If you think I'm confused by what you say, don't immediately assume that the fault is mine--turn that laser around and consider that perhaps you didn't quite get your point across.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    I agree to certain points of Cold Fusion, 'better' is a term which we (humans) use for determing something that reaches a goal 'nearer' than something else (which is the meaning).
    So if I want to reach point A, but only can reach point B (next to A) or C (next to B) I will choose the 'better solution, namly point B.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    81
    I'd rather have no meaning. At least then you're not deluding yourself with a false sense of purpose and you have a better chance at finding your true purpose.
    "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimension
    I'd rather have no meaning. At least then you're not deluding yourself with a false sense of purpose and you have a better chance at finding your true purpose.
    Which would be nothing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    81
    Perhaps it is nothing. Perhaps not. But you won't find out if your attention is focused on something else.
    "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Incentive comes from the foresight of a goal, and goals can only be created from motivation, and motivation has to come from some source or another....namely what I was inferring.

    NO, not everyone has true incentive to learn. Think about it this way...you could say that religious people have incentive to learn about the truth in life, but guess what? regardless of what you teach them, through their logic they will negate what you said and call it wrong, because they were deceived from the start, and could not use any shred of competence to eliminate those naive thoughts from their mind, and hence understand what they wanted to know!

    The point is that incentive can often be tainted by other conflicting false ideas. I was not talking about just incentive as a THOUGHT in its most basic form, I was talking about what you are trying to accomplish and how ready you are to fulfill your wants in demands in order to achieve it! Religious people(and other groups/people) will contradict their interests because they already have false thoughts instilled into them, such as religion!

    Its hard to explain....this is the REAL philosophy, it deals with things that can almost only be taught by yourself, and therefore utilized by yourself.
    Its not only philosophy, its quantum thought.

    The people I have to deal with, and am forced to deal with are all morons. Even my closest friends aren't 1/2 as intelligent as I am. Think about it....lets do the process to quantify # of morons...well, maybe I'll piss off too many people, never mind.

    Emotional stability? Self Discipline? Those are just products of the lower level fight against subjectivity.

    Incentive is everything! People with the highest determination to become as intelligent as possible are willing to throw beliefs out the window in order to achieve their goal! In their quest for knowledge they will dismiss their religion, forget what they have been taught, forget what every one around thinks and to what extent they are willing to go to prevent your ideas; they will do anything! Personality won't get in the way, their girlfriend won't make them budge, their parents won't, and nothing will!
    I AM in most part the product of objectivity, and EVERY GOD DAMN single shred of subjectivity that I posses (personality, taste in food, women, cars, etc....) I severely keep in check! I NEVER loose myself to some stupid humanistic tangent of idiocy! It never happens! Because I have the will to give anything up in order to become more and more aware of myself and everything around me! And I will not stop! I will continue until the day that I die, and even then hold on to every piece of objectivity that I came to posses through out my life. Before I die, rather than thinking about god, or any B.S. in order to make me feel better, I will embrace the fact that I have remained truthful to my goals, and untainted my entire life!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Ok, best of luck!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Incentive is everything! People with the highest determination to become as intelligent as possible are willing to throw beliefs out the window in order to achieve their goal! In their quest for knowledge they will dismiss their religion, forget what they have been taught, forget what every one around thinks and to what extent they are willing to go to prevent your ideas; they will do anything! Personality won't get in the way, their girlfriend won't make them budge, their parents won't, and nothing will!
    I AM in most part the product of objectivity, and EVERY GOD DAMN single shred of subjectivity that I posses (personality, taste in food, women, cars, etc....) I severely keep in check! I NEVER loose myself to some stupid humanistic tangent of idiocy! It never happens! Because I have the will to give anything up in order to become more and more aware of myself and everything around me! And I will not stop! I will continue until the day that I die, and even then hold on to every piece of objectivity that I came to posses through out my life. Before I die, rather than thinking about god, or any B.S. in order to make me feel better, I will embrace the fact that I have remained truthful to my goals, and untainted my entire life!
    So you are governed by your instincts then. Very interesting, though rather unsurprising.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimension
    Perhaps it is nothing. Perhaps not.
    No, not "perhaps not." You can't tell people there's no purpose, then tell them that rather than looking for purpose, they should find purpose.

    Any search for purpose is, obviously, a search for purpose. Doesn't matter if it's looking for purpose through faith, religion, science, patriotism, whatever. You can't tell one group to "stop looking for purpose and instead look for purpose." ...Well, you can, but you may turn into a git. :?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Religious people don't necessarily use logic in a different manner from non-religious believers, just as christians don't use a different logic than muslims. They do however start with different fundamental propositions, Christianity, Jesus is God and the Bible is the inspired word of God and Muslims, Mohammad is Gods messenger and the Qur'an is the inspired word of God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    I'd have to disagree. I think religious people (and by "religious people" I assume we are talking about the ones causing "problems") generally do use logic...it's just that they're not very good at it. :P

    Several times I've seen, in this forum, religious people who have posted explanations that, if you lay out, clearly don't make any sense. Not because they ask us to believe in something or whatnot, but because the logic is self defeating.

    I think that one of the main problems with religious preaching is that the people doing the preaching just don't have the right schooling or ability to construct a more sound argument. I don't deny their intentions, just their methods.

    It's like a kid trying to prove something is right by repeatedly screaming "Yes it is! Yes it is!" They probably are right, but they just don't understand that "yes it is" doesn't make any kind of valid argument.

    When you're trying to convince somebody of something ( :P ) you should say "I believe this is true, and here is why..." not just "This is true."
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •