It's All Relative: Why Perspective is Everything

[dschouten]

Really, who cares? You're going to die anyway.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Why ask about asking why...

If you follow your logic why eat... you will die anyway

If you have a faith or not the point of life is to have a purpose. Often if you truly analize these purposes they are pointless... but the important thing is to believe that you have purpose. Discovering more about the world allows you to "help" other people make life "easier" for other people, and progressive the knowledge of mankind. Of all the manifested purposes of life this is one that I would consider the purest.

That’s why

 

[dschouten]

Why ask about asking why...

If you follow your logic why eat... you will die anyway

Exactly. I stopped eating a while ago.

If you have a faith or not the point of life is to have a purpose. Often if you truly analize these purposes they are pointless... but the important thing is to believe that you have purpose. Discovering more about the world allows you to "help" other people make life "easier" for other people, and progressive the knowledge of mankind. Of all the manifested purposes of life this is one that I would consider the purest.

That’s why

Why the hell is it important to believe I have purpose? So I don't get depressed? Hah. Why not take some drugs instead. Much easier to believe in them.

 

[Erus]

What would be the purpse of taking drugs? To escape your reality? You should also believe than that your life is meaningless and 'sucks'. I don't think you have to 'believe' you're of any importance. On a total level, of mankind as Tom stated you are important even the slightest degree. You, even if you don't care, are important to your family members, your friends, etc. At an individual level, that you have any reason to ask 'why?', there is no point to asking such. You will die, and never quite fulfill 'why?'. I have a simple analogy of what one being can do to another being, or multiple beings. A simple life is like a candle, wick and wax. The wick can be lit by a single flame, so that this candle burns. This candle can also light another candle, or 2 candles, or 3 candles. The flame one candle has can light all other wicks.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

life

Exactly. I stopped eating a while ago.


Why the hell is it important to believe I have purpose? So I don't get depressed? Hah. Why not take some drugs instead. Much easier to believe in them.

Much easier to believe in...
??

Drugs become your purpose

When life has no purpose you die, until then you can't escape the fact that you are living for some sort of purpose at every moment.

 

[dschouten]

When life has no purpose you die, until then you can't escape the fact that you are living for some sort of purpose at every moment.

When life has a purpose you die too. What's the difference?

 

[Locrian]

Good thing you stopped by the philosophy section of a physics help forum on your way out.

 

[dschouten]

Good thing you stopped by the philosophy section of a physics help forum on your way out.

LOL. Much laughter, I have had.

 

[dschouten]

Why can't anyone answer this question satisfactorily?

 

[Averagesupernova]

I'd like to have you for my neighbor. You'd give me all your stuff right? Oh what the heck, you can give it to me anyway. Gimme your email addy and I'll have you send me a check.

 

[BoulderHead]

Dark Philosophy (I love it!)

Really, who cares? You're going to die anyway.

Albert Camus described the human condition as “absurd” (because we demand our lives should have significance in an indifferent universe, itself devoid of meaning or purpose). The philosophical problem, therefore, is that of suicide. Camus concludes destroying oneself is a kind of capitulation, and appeals to human pride by calling for leading a life of stoic refusal to accommodate oneself to cosmic meaninglessness. Here’s what I think about that;

Rebelling against meaninglessness does not, in itself, add meaning. Living and dying are actions, but meaning is not; it involves purpose, and to my thinking, actions don’t seem to cause purpose, although it is common to hold purpose may cause action. Human pride as a will to live does not appeal to me, it isn’t even a reason at all; it is simply an emotion, often an ugly one. To posture against a mindless universe with a show of pride is like a fool beating his chest, not something I can get excited about.

I’m predisposed to think drudging onward isn’t even principally rooted in rationality; it is simply a core component of animal nature. Therefore, since we are naturally here, and our nature impels us to push on, I suggest true capitulation to cosmic circumstance involves using reason to justify what is in fact already our basic nature, a nature which is indeed our taskmaster, insisting we push on and on and on despite the lack of meaning. Consider a man in the middle of an ocean; all his thrashing of arms and legs will add no meaning to his condition, although it might prolong his life temporarily, it’s simply an innate primitive response any and every unreasoning animal would be under the spell of, attempting to avoid the inevitable. Kick hard and add meaning someone says? What, life needs yet more meaning? Hmmm, try kicking even harder, haha!

I would argue even immortality would be meaningless. It might, however, give pause for additional consideration before offing oneself, but it could not in itself give meaning. In considering, however, why immortality should give pause I find for myself the key to this mystery; it is found not by searching for meaning but, rather, by recognizing what living provides that death does not; hope. Hope for a more satisfying state of affairs in an indifferent universe, where hope is not mindless but something more tangible. Hope is an idea of how things might be, not of how they are. Hope offers real possibility, pride offers nothing, and when life leaves it takes hope with it, which explains something about despair.

[edit:]I've rethought part of this and decided that I'm the kind of fool who can get excited about chest beating, but only when combined with howling at the moon! [/edit]

 

[tabloid]

Really, who cares? You're going to die anyway.

..bottomline...life goes on dumass!

 

[Deeviant]

Dschouten, I can hardly add anything upon BoulderHead's post. It contains the the gist of the answer your looking for.

To summarize his post, in case you aren't one to read longer posts...

Do you have a better idea? If so, is it a better idea?

 

[dschouten]

Albert Camus described the human condition as “absurd” (because we demand our lives should have significance in an indifferent universe, itself devoid of meaning or purpose). The philosophical problem, therefore, is that of suicide. Camus concludes destroying oneself is a kind of capitulation, and appeals to human pride by calling for leading a life of stoic refusal to accommodate oneself to cosmic meaninglessness. Here’s what I think about that;

Rebelling against meaninglessness does not, in itself, add meaning. Living and dying are actions, but meaning is not; it involves purpose, and to my thinking, actions don’t seem to cause purpose, although it is common to hold purpose may cause action. Human pride as a will to live does not appeal to me, it isn’t even a reason at all; it is simply an emotion, often an ugly one. To posture against a mindless universe with a show of pride is like a fool beating his chest, not something I can get excited about.

I’m predisposed to think drudging onward isn’t even principally rooted in rationality; it is simply a core component of animal nature. Therefore, since we are naturally here, and our nature impels us to push on, I suggest true capitulation to cosmic circumstance involves using reason to justify what is in fact already our basic nature, a nature which is indeed our taskmaster, insisting we push on and on and on despite the lack of meaning. Consider a man in the middle of an ocean; all his thrashing of arms and legs will add no meaning to his condition, although it might prolong his life temporarily, it’s simply an innate primitive response any and every unreasoning animal would be under the spell of, attempting to avoid the inevitable. Kick hard and add meaning someone says? What, life needs yet more meaning? Hmmm, try kicking even harder, haha!

I would argue even immortality would be meaningless. It might, however, give pause for additional consideration before offing oneself, but it could not in itself give meaning. In considering, however, why immortality should give pause I find for myself the key to this mystery; it is found not by searching for meaning but, rather, by recognizing what living provides that death does not; hope. Hope for a more satisfying state of affairs in an indifferent universe, where hope is not mindless but something more tangible. Hope is an idea of how things might be, not of how they are. Hope offers real possibility, pride offers nothing, and when life leaves it takes hope with it, which explains something about despair.

[edit:]I've rethought part of this and decided that I'm the kind of fool who can get excited about chest beating, but only when combined with howling at the moon! [/edit]

Out of all the responses in this forum, yours is by far the best, both in terms of effort and in terms of ability.

However, I can't help but question one of your fundamental assertions in the above response: that it is sheer animal instinct to continue with this drudgery that is called life ad infinitum through endless meaningless generations. The difference is that we (that is humanity) have thus far revealed ourselves as the only beings on this planet, and in the known universe, which have any concept of meaning at all - regardless of how vague our understanding of the term is.

An example to establish the differences between humans and animals in this regard: imagine a dog questioning the meaning of playing fetch with its master. Reductio ad absurdum, at least.

So perhaps my original question "Why ask why" can be rephrased: "If we are going to ignore meaning (supress our rationality) and follow our animal instincts why have a philosophy forum?"

Either we abandon all meaning, or we embrace it and I don't think we can just ignore the dichotomy.

 

[wuliheron]

Really, who cares? You're going to die anyway.

Why does dying make a difference in your caring?

 

[pmb_phy]

Really, who cares? You're going to die anyway.

Some people never ask why. Its not part of their personality. Others have a thirst for knowledge - they are the ones who ask why and it is how they obtain some satisfaction while the are alive.

Pete

 

[dschouten]

Some people never ask why. Its not part of their personality. Others have a thirst for knowledge - they are the ones who ask why and it is how they obtain some satisfaction while the are alive.

Pete

So the question "Why?" is asked to gain satisfaction. Of course. You've simply restated the question.

 

[Locrian]

Exactly. I stopped eating a while ago.

How long is a while ago? It pains me to think we have about 40 more days of this.

 

[BoulderHead]

So perhaps my original question "Why ask why" can be rephrased: "If we are going to ignore meaning (supress our rationality) and follow our animal instincts why have a philosophy forum?"

I suppose there are things to philosophize about besides meaning, and therefore our rationality need not be fully suppressed. Naturally, I hold that any thinking person will need at some point or other to ponder the question your initial post asks, and I hope you will find a satisfactory answer.

Either we abandon all meaning, or we embrace it and I don't think we can just ignore the dichotomy.

I chose abandonment.

Anyway, I think Wu Li asks a simple question which upon more than cursory examination can be seen as insightful. Have you an answer for it?

 

[BoulderHead]

How long is a while ago? It pains me to think we have about 40 more days of this.

:tongue:

 

[cepheid]

^^Not if he stopped drinking as well

 

[dschouten]

How long is a while ago? It pains me to think we have about 40 more days of this.

Oh, that shouldn't matter. After all, these kind of inane discussions add meaning to our lives! Philosophy forums: where the wannabe's argue with the hasbeen's and the neverwas's (I fall into all of the above categories and argue with myself often).

As a side note, I don't eat to have meaning - I eat to live. But why the heck do I live? Answer me that, and I'll give you a stuffed-bear prize (and a really big one at that!).

 

[dschouten]

I suppose there are things to philosophize about besides meaning, and therefore our rationality need not be fully suppressed. Naturally, I hold that any thinking person will need at some point or other to ponder the question your initial post asks, and I hope you will find a satisfactory answer.

Like what for example? What, in the entire realm of philosophical debate is untouched by meaning?

I chose abandonment.

Okey-dokey.

Anyway, I think Wu Li asks a simple question which upon more than cursory examination can be seen as insightful. Have you an answer for it?

I have a sneaking suspicion about this and it has only been strengthened by the cute little quips I've received as replies so far: people like to avoid answering this question like they avoid the plague.

Why ask why? I guess one would need to find meaning for existing at all. Then we can question the nature of our existence as it pertains to our curiosity in this regard.

 

[dschouten]

Not if he stopped drinking as well

Yes. Teehehe. Snicker. Hmmph.

Then I would probably die, you know, if I stopped drinking! Hahahaha. That is so funny! You are funny!

 

[BoulderHead]

Like what for example? What, in the entire realm of philosophical debate is untouched by meaning?

Well, the original question was “why ask why”, which is fairly easy to answer straightforwardly by saying; because I’m curious. You altered the question substantially when you reworded it to;

"If we are going to ignore meaning (supress our rationality) and follow our animal instincts why have a philosophy forum?"

This is quite a different question entirely and can be understood in more than one way. For example; it seems you are defining all of philosophy to suggest it means “love and pursuit of meaning”. I think one can investigate the nature of reality without having to presuppose it has a meaning knowable to the human mind.

Why ask why? I guess one would need to find meaning for existing at all. Then we can question the nature of our existence as it pertains to our curiosity in this regard.

Wu Li asked: “Why does dying make a difference in your caring?” in response to your original question of “Really, who cares? You're going to die anyway.”. I’m failing to see how your comment above addresses what was asked. You have linked caring to dying, the question is why?

 

[Tom McCurdy]

cry for attention

Really, who cares? You're going to die anyway.

Your asking about why you would ask why, let's not stop there let's go one more why ask about asking why about asking why, and if that doesn't get you why don't you ask why you would asky why about asking why you would ask why.

 

[wuliheron]

I have a sneaking suspicion about this and it has only been strengthened by the cute little quips I've received as replies so far: people like to avoid answering this question like they avoid the plague.

Why ask why? I guess one would need to find meaning for existing at all. Then we can question the nature of our existence as it pertains to our curiosity in this regard.

A friend of mine likes to refer to this as the "Why game" which any three year old is familiar with. For any answer given, all you need do is keep asking "Why." If I had wanted to just play the "Why Game" I would have asked, "Why ask,'why ask why?'"

What distinguishes a sincere question from a rhetorical one is attitude. If you assert that life might as well be meaningless because we are all going to die anyway, then your question of "Why ask why?" is a rhetorical one. Rhetorical questions are actually statements, not questions. Just like the "Why Game" is actually based upon rhetorical questions.

 

[dschouten]

A friend of mine likes to refer to this as the "Why game" which any three year old is familiar with. For any answer given, all you need do is keep asking "Why." If I had wanted to just play the "Why Game" I would have asked, "Why ask,'why ask why?'"

Good for your friend. Sounds like a fun game.

What distinguishes a sincere question from a rhetorical one is attitude. If you assert that life might as well be meaningless because we are all going to die anyway, then your question of "Why ask why?" is a rhetorical one. Rhetorical questions are actually statements, not questions. Just like the "Why Game" is actually based upon rhetorical questions.

You are correct, the question was rhetorical. It was a challenge to anyone who cares to justify this seemingly meaningless pursuit of understanding.

 

[dschouten]

Wu Li asked: “Why does dying make a difference in your caring?” in response to your original question of “Really, who cares? You're going to die anyway.”. I’m failing to see how your comment above addresses what was asked. You have linked caring to dying, the question is why?

The fact that dying so obviously makes a difference to anyone's caring is the reason I chose not to respond to this question. I shouldn't have to validate every obvious assumption hidden in the nuances of my question.

Consider: you are on your death bed, and have hours to live. Some guy from the philosophy forum rushes into your hospital room and asks something like, I don't know, say "Is it morally right to eat meat?". What do you say? How about, "Bugger off, I'm dying!"

Now stretch those hours out to forty years, or seventy, or a hundred. Does anything fundamentally change? Are these question more meaningful?

 

[dschouten]

McCurly

Your asking about why you would ask why, let's not stop there let's go one more why ask about asking why about asking why, and if that doesn't get you why don't you ask why you would asky why about asking why you would ask why.

"Let's"? This implies some sort of collaboration. I asked the question. I'll determine the recursion thereof.

 

[wuliheron]

Good for your friend. Sounds like a fun game.

You are correct, the question was rhetorical. It was a challenge to anyone who cares to justify this seemingly meaningless pursuit of understanding.

What meaningless pursuit of understanding are you talking about?

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Maybe the best answer the first question: Why not?

 

[dschouten]

Maybe the best answer the first question: Why not?

This would've been my first response, but I don't think that what it implies is the truth.

What it seems to imply is that the question "Why?" is asked merely by happenstance, to keep oneself busy, etc ... (fill in the blank with some other reason). But I don't think this is the case. Out of all the questions that could be asked, "Why?" is distinct. It demands meaning. Its only answer must be filled with meaning - for this is the only type of response that will satisfy it.

Of course, why look for meaning - why ask the question why? What possible meaning could there be? This is what I am hoping will be discussed.

I would prefer it if people just answered these questions honestly, and spared me the argumentative responses about the validity of the question. If you don't like the question, don't answer it.

 

[wuliheron]

This would've been my first response, but I don't think that what it implies is the truth.

What it seems to imply is that the question "Why?" is asked merely by happenstance, to keep oneself busy, etc ... (fill in the blank with some other reason). But I don't think this is the case. Out of all the questions that could be asked, "Why?" is distinct. It demands meaning. Its only answer must be filled with meaning - for this is the only type of response that will satisfy it.

Of course, why look for meaning - why ask the question why? What possible meaning could there be? This is what I am hoping will be discussed.

I would prefer it if people just answered these questions honestly, and spared me the argumentative responses about the validity of the question. If you don't like the question, don't answer it.

What's up with this bait and switch stratagy? Running out of people willing to encourage your rambling? I remind you of what you said previously:

You are correct, the question was rhetorical. It was a challenge to anyone who cares to justify this seemingly meaningless pursuit of understanding.

There is a huge distinction between an argument and a discussion, just as there is a huge difference between a statement and a question. Again, that difference is one of attitude, the only demonstrable source of all meaning.

 

[dschouten]

What's up with this bait and switch stratagy? Running out of people willing to encourage your rambling? I remind you of what you said previously:

Why can't a question also be a challenge? Example: do you think you're better than me?

There is a huge distinction between an argument and a discussion, just as there is a huge difference between a statement and a question. Again, that difference is one of attitude, the only demonstrable source of all meaning.

Whatever. I asked a question, and rather than answering it, 90% of the respondants decided to ignore it or deride it. Why not just answer the friggin' question? What part of normal communication don't you understand?

This is so typical of this forum. If I asked something so simple as is "Is the sky blue" some crack pot would come along and demand that I specify exactly what I mean by 'blue', and what is this 'sky' thing I am talking about anyway?