Is Why? a good enough question for you?

[PeopleCanReadToo]

Is "Why?" a good enough question for you?

Has the idea "Why do I exist?" ever surface in your thought? How about "Why do we exist?" Both are very entertaining to the extent and connotation that entertainment "can be" or "mean to oneself". Focusing in any organized religous direction is a fairly easy way to drop the question and for one to feel that the question of existence has been "answerred". Atheism is yet another direction to take that can fairly easily cancel out the need for that question (i.e. our purpose is to feed the worms). Agnosticism on the other hand allows one to leave free space for advancement because to humble down to knowing nothing, we can therefore only metaphorically grow into the mighty oak from an acorn.
Very recently a good friend has offerred to me the suggestion that maybe agnostics are deep down in their minds nihilists too afraid (and mind you, fear isn't a negative thing all the time) to succumb to meaningless. Nihilism isn't a very attractive idea to the general public (especially to those people whom "already know" what is going to happen when they die and even how they came into this world).
So, I offer this explanation towards existence whether or not we "actually do exist or not"... to exist is to define oneself. To define oneself is to account for the uniqueness of thought and perspective. And to account for the uniqueness of thought and perspective is to communicate. And to communicate is to perpetuate information on definitions... that is all for now...

 

[sameandnot]

know, first, "who" exists. then worry about the "why?"

how could you claim to know "why" you exist when you are not clear about "who" it is that exists?

hint: the name is not the thing itself. the name attempts to point to the thing, but the thing is always greater than what the name points to.

name=image=idea=word=symbol=number

what is left?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Has the idea "Why do I exist?" ever surface in your thought? How about "Why do we exist?" Both are very entertaining to the extent and connotation that entertainment "can be" or "mean to oneself". Focusing in any organized religous direction is a fairly easy way to drop the question and for one to feel that the question of existence has been "answerred". Atheism is yet another direction to take that can fairly easily cancel out the need for that question (i.e. our purpose is to feed the worms). Agnosticism on the other hand allows one to leave free space for advancement because to humble down to knowing nothing, we can therefore only metaphorically grow into the mighty oak from an acorn.
Very recently a good friend has offerred to me the suggestion that maybe agnostics are deep down in their minds nihilists too afraid (and mind you, fear isn't a negative thing all the time) to succumb to meaningless. Nihilism isn't a very attractive idea to the general public (especially to those people whom "already know" what is going to happen when they die and even how they came into this world).
So, I offer this explanation towards existence whether or not we "actually do exist or not"... to exist is to define oneself. To define oneself is to account for the uniqueness of thought and perspective. And to account for the uniqueness of thought and perspective is to communicate. And to communicate is to perpetuate information on definitions... that is all for now...

tennis ball













As you can see, the tennis ball up there can't define itself merely by its existence. In other words, if a tennis ball exists in empty space, and those who discover it aren't familiar with the game of tennis, the tennis ball will exist only to define its physical properties (whats on the surface), but its existence doesn't indicate it's true purpose (why it is there).

To me, meaninglessness means to have no use. In this definition, this doesn't imply purposlessness because what if the purpose of the tennis ball is to get its discovererors thinking about why it is there in the first place? After the discoverers of the TB think about that, they will try to find uses for it, and after a while they will find their own purpose for it. They may not use it how it "ought" to be used, but then again people don't use tennis balls just for tennis either. You can make up all kinds of games that involve the use of a tennis ball.

This doesn't really apply to a human (who has their own thoughts and feelings), but there is a slight similarity. Our bodies exist because our minds recognize them as being there, and they allow us (minds) to tranceive communication through the physical environment our bodies exist within. To deny this experience is to be close-minded to our reality. Granted that this may just be a "surface" description of our reality, it is true in its own level, just as Newtonian mechanichs is true on a classical scale. What happens when we play tennis? Why do we partake in such activities? Is there any meaning in a game of tennis? Is there any purpose? One can feel that there really is no meaning or purpose to the game and all its facets, another can feel that tennis is the most intricate and amazing thing that humans have ever created, and that all of the lessons of life can be learned from the game. Who is the "enlightened" one here? Who is right? Is my entire post meaningless?