|
T H E M E A N I N G O F L I F E Life experience teaches that an enemy is necessary to survive. (Compare all living beings.) If a living being, especially a human being, survives without an enemy, there is no expanding, and if there is no expanding, then in the long run (in the long run!) there is no life anymore. In the long run living groups (for example: packs, prides), especially human groups (for example: tribes, communes) decline and die out, if they have no enemy. They die out because of too much energy, wealth, hedonism, “individualism” and other nihilisms, and one of them is the ism of “having no enemy”, “world peace”, “universal peace” ... and so on. I didn't say anything about a child, but about groups of those living beings (including human beings) who survive or not survive in the long run - in the long run! A “child in the long run” is no child anymore. In the long run a child is already an adult. But a child is no adult. Children need protection, so they don't need an enemy, except when they play adult roles, but that's merely a play. Life, especially life in groups (for example: tribes, communes) needs an enemy in the long run. Without an enemy groups can't survive in the long run. Your conclusion, which is a result of a complex comparison, is false. Notice the term “in the long run” which means for a person about 30 years and more, and for a group (for example: a tribe, a commune) about 100 years and more. A life of one person lasts about 80 years (on average), a childish life lasts about 14 to 16 years (on average) - that's too less when it comes to the long run of a group (for example: a tribe, a commune): about 100 years and more. In addition: children need protection, and if they are not protected, they die (in the most cases of living beings) or become diseased. And pleace notice that an enemy for a living being doesn't necessarily always be another living being. Forces of nature are often also experienced as enemies. And not seldom they are challenges in order to form and justify cultures (compare the theory of Arnold Joseph Toynbee). Besides: Whatever psychology is (do you know what “psyche” really is? [Compare the Ancient Greek mythology!]), it is no science of children - a science of children has to incorporate all realms of science (because of the complexity) - and it merely shows statistics, manipulated data, manipulated information, mainstream statements, political correctness, thus the ideology of the rulers. I am not very much interested in ideology (modern religion). The synthesis becomes a new thesis (cp. Hegel’s „Dialektik“). Life with no synthesis would be very boring, merely acting (thesis) and reacting (antithesis), no qualitative change. There would be no qualitative development without any synthesis (and further: no new thesis). Humans changed their lives - compare the humans of the Stone Age and the humans of the last 6000 years. Without any synthesis life would be merely a ping pong game, because it would merely consist of thesis and antithesis, for example: action and reaction. “Free will” is not what human beings or other living beings have, because they are part of the evolution. For example: As a human you can't decide your origin, your genetic program, your birth, your death. And if you can't decide about the most important phenomenons of your life, then you have no “free will”. Market propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting articles, consumer goods, products, so that you may think you have a “free will”, but what you have is merely a “relative free will”. Political propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting politicians, their parties (homonym!), their ideologies (modern religions), so that you may think you have a “free will”, but what you have is merely a “relative free will”. They say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting your sex, gender, so that you may think you have a “free will”, but what you have is merely a “relative free will”. You can merely choose in a relative way. God, the nature, or Kant’s „Ding an sich“ (“thing as such” / “thing in itself”) may have or be a “free will”, but humans don't know who or what they really are and have killed them, either absolutely (God) or partly (nature, „Ding an sich“). What is the purpose of life, of living beings (including human beings)? The purpose / goal / sense of life could be to fulfill / accomplish / achieve what was set in the beginning of it. Do you know the biological definition of „life“? The biological definition of „life“ is the best one we have. There are also good definitions of „life“ which come from life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics). Life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics), and also the ordinary experiences with machines have influenced some interpretations but not the biological definition of „life“, because it is based on cells, and cells are well known. Cells are not machines, and machines are not cells, although both have similarities and work similarly. A cell is a living being; a cell is the smallest independently viable unit; a cell is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms; a cell as the smallest unit of life can replicate independently; a cell is the „building block of life“; a cell is capable of synthesizing new proteins, which are essential for the modulation and maintenance of cellular activities; a cell is able to divide itself into two or more cells - this process is called „cell division“. The cell division is the process by which a parent cell divides into two or more daughter cells. So the cell division involves a single cell (called a mother cell) dividing into two daughter cells. This leads to growth in multicellular organisms (the growth of tissue) and to procreation (vegetative reproduction) in unicellular organisms. The process of duplicating a cell's genome - thus: the DNA replication - always happens when a cell divides through mitosis or binary fission. Three types of cell division:
Example:
A cell division over 42 hours. The cells were directly imaged in the cell culture vessel, using non-invasive quantitative phase contrast time-lapse microscopy. Schematic of the cell cycle:
I = Interphase, M = Mitosis; inner ring: M = Mitosis, G1 = Gap 1, G2 = Gap 2, S = Synthesis; not in ring: G0 = Gap 0/Resting. The DNA replication (the process of duplicating a cell's genome which always happens when a cell divides through mitosis or binary fission) occurs during the S phase of the cell cycle. There has to be a decision, yes, and that means that there has to be an interest, a reproduction interest. Like I said: Evolution is an own-dynamic, self-organised process, and according to the systemic-evolution-theory its three principles are (1) variation, (2) reproduction (according to Darwinism: heredity), (3) reproduction interest (according to the Darwinism: selection [but that is partly false]). Self-preservation means preservation of the competence during the current own life. Variation (=> 1) means that there are and must be several units (often called „individuals“)because of the mutations, the variances in the genetic code. Reproduction (=> 2) means preservation of the competence beyond the own life (by having offspring [children]). Reproduction interest (=> 3) means the interest in the reproduction (the example homo sapiens shows that this interest can be non-existent or even negative). Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call „evolution“? Life in a negative sense of valuation is not only about suffering but also about death. Humans want to be immortal - like gods. Children develop and learn to be like adults. The older a child the more similar to an adult.
If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, upbringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore. We can say that an „authentic human life“ means a „life
according to the human's nature“, whereas an „unauthentic
life“ means a „life according to the human's culture/s“. Does life make sense? If so: What sense does it make? Is there any purpose of life? If so: What purpose is it? Is there any goal of life? If so: What goal is it? Should we go so far and say that INTELLIGENCE is the meaning of life? What about LOVE? What about WILL? What about POWER or the WILL TO POWER? One can say that the meaning of life is to fulfill what has been set since the beginning of each life (genetic program). If a life comes closer to human life, then more and more luxury and boredom appears. So this kind of life is not only determined by nature but also by culture, and the more human life is concerned the more life is also determined by culture. Boredom (a) in a general sense (experiencing of boredom in general, regardless how often you are bored or whether you are a more boring human or not) and (b) in a relative sense (for example by comparison). Boredom is just one of many other examples that can show how different the meaning of life can be interpreted. If you can experience or/and have experienced boredom, so that you know what it means, then it is enough in order to be one of those living beings that are not always chained to natural behavior, forced to do what nature demands. In other words: Humans are living beings that know what, for example, „boredom“ means, because they can experience or/and have experienced it. Life resists entropy. Otherwise it would not be capable of self-preservation and would decay, thus die. Self-preservation means preservation of the competences during the actual life, whereas reproduction means preservation of the competences beypond the own life. There are three evolution principles: (1) variation, (2) reproduction, (3) reproduction interest. Living beings get recources out of their environment in order to reproduce their competences by the resources of the environment, thus to preserve (conserve) and renew their competences. So they strive to reproduce their competences. According to this the meaning of life is the avoidance of the loss of the competences. If you have the impression that you are not needed anymore, then you have the impression of the loss of your competences. Note: „Competences“ means more than„fitness“, it is more like „capital“, „power“, „acceptance“, „appreceation“. An ethical question: Do you think that dominating banks is good or evil? Life means forming spheres, doesn't it? No living being is capable of living without self-preservation. Life is self-preservation. „Living without memory“ does not mean that it is „no life“ or even „no existence“. It means that it is no conscious life, as you said, but not „no life“. It is life. And above all: it is existence. Of course, to the memoryless persons themselves there is no this and no that or only this and that (who knows?), but this does not (at least not objectively) mean that they do not live, not have any affect, not exist. Philosophy of life is sometimes also called „vitalism“, but I would not say that „philosophy of life“ is just „vitalism“, because it is a bit more than that (at least to me). Therefore I prefer the term „life philosophy“. Life philosophy is a philosophy not only of or about but also within life, thus also a practical or empirical philosophy (more or less also including existential philosophy and cultural philosophy, for example), which is not like but merely close to empirical science. To me, the best example for a literary form of a philosophy of life, existence, and culture is Goethe's „Faust“ and Faust the best literary character of a life philosophy. Goethe was not mainly a philosopher, but all what he did can also be used as a philosophy, especially his knowledge about morphology (cp. for example his „Die Metamorphose der Pflanzen“), his novels, for example „Die Leiden des jungen Werthers“ or „Wilhelm Meister ...“, his tragedy „Faust I and II“ (as I alraedy mentioned) or his books „Aus meinem Leben - Dichtung und Wahrheit“, „Maximen und Reflexionen“ and others. And (by the way): Goethe lived in a time of two philosophically and scientifically important Occidental eras: (1) Enlightenment, (2) Idealism/Romantic.
Although life philosophy wants to understand life by life itself, it should not be completely reduced to vitalism and biologism which are aspects of it but not more. To Goethe „Entelechie“ („entelechy“) was „ein Stück Ewigkeit, das den Körper lebend durchdringt“ („a piece of eternity that gets lively through the body“). I am just offering some keyword arguments that could - but does not have to - speak for the meaning of life: 1) Offspring. If we argue aesthetically (see: 15) or ethically (see: 16) or logically (see: 17), then we ask whether is it because of the other arguments (see: 1-14) or the other way around. Existence is more than life, existence was earlier than life, existence is the basis of life, whereas life is the higher form of existence, and according to the formal definition: life is a subordinated form of existence; so existence is its superordinated form. In other words: Every living being is an existing being, but not every existing being is a living being. Examples: Stones do exist, but they do not live. They are existing beings, but they are not living beings. Trees are existing and living beings. You (**) do not know whether life is „occured randomly“ or not (**|**). The question whether there is a meaning of life does always make sense, and people always ask this question. It does not assume that „there is a meaning“, as you suggest (probably because you yourself assume that there is no meaning). It is just a question. Everyone may find an answer to this question, regardless which answer it is. That is the reason why I opened this thread. If you assume that there is no meaning of life for you, then just say that there is „no meaning of life for you“ (again: for you!). You have no objective - but only a subjective (**|**) - argument against those who say that there is an objective meaning of life. There is no proof of the thesis that there is no meaning of life. Randomness has not much to do with the question whether life makes sense. It is a fact that life is everywhere in the universe where it has got a chance. Our universe tends to life. We have to distinguish between evolution and history, between nature and culture or a person. Then the answer to the question of the meaning of life has indeed two sides. A person or a couple, a family, a kin, a clan, a tribe, a nation, a culture can have a goal, so that life makes sense, probably because of getting respect, the will to power, or/and just because of each moment. This could also mean that the life of the human species makes sense. But can we know that for sure? Maybe there is only a subjective answer possible, an answer of a person, a couple, a family, a kin, a clan, a tribe, a nation, a culture - if each of them is a subject. The objective meaning could be the framework condition of evolution or nature, for example the fight against the entropy, or the completion, the achievement, the perfection of what was set or placed with its earliest beginning, the fertilizaition, conception. The human species is merely a zoological concept. But a human as a person or humans as another subject - like a couple, a family, a kin, a clan, a tribe, a nation, a culture - can have, should have and often do have a goal which shows that their life makes sense, has a meaning. „Meaning“ is the central concept of semantics which is one of the most important subdiscipline of linguistics. The semantical research can be done in a synchronic and in a diachronic (etymological) way. So meaning has a history too. Animals do not reall know that a certain phenomenenon has a meaning; but they know the meaning of some phenomenons, because they have experienced them. So one has to have something like the human language in which one can analyse sound (phonemes) and the smalles forms with a meaning (morphemes), then words, sentences, texts. Just observe little children when they learn the language of their parents or family. They learn that certain speech-forms, thus lingusitic forms, have certain meanings, either inward or outward. If these meanings are inward, then they are part of the language itself; and if they are outward, then they are part of both the language and the environment. So meanings can change (see also above: diachronic [etymological]), are in permanent contact with the environment of any language. The inward located meanings have a more subjective or „individual“ character, and the outward located meanings have a more objective character, and both are in permanent contact. Biophysicists have commented that living things function on negative entropy. According to them, life is a member of the class of phenomena that are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form. „Negative entropy“ can also be interpreted as „negative chaos“. In German it is said „Leben hat Sinn“ („life has sense“), not „Leben macht Sinn“ („life makes sense“). I mean that life makes sense in a cultural way, because culture is something that is started and stopped by the cultural beings themselves. Also, destruction can make sense too, at least to certain humans. We are both natural and cultural. Life could be so easy. But the greed destroys everything. If animals were smarter and capable of speaking, they would certainly say: „Humans are beings of greed“. The evolution (if we can use that word) of love is not only a way to perpetuate the human species but also to save it. We can observe this process in those families where parents protect their children as much as it is necessary for the children’s development. Love is needed for both phylogenesis and ontogenesis. Without love there is no evolution, at least not for „higher“ living beings. The „higher“ the living beings are, the more love they need. We should have both a realistic and an idealistic interpretation of evolution. Power is always present, but love is not. So, it is more necessary to support, to demand, to premote love. How should we do this? - [1] By practising love; [2] by enlighten others and clarifying what love means; (3) by fighting all enemies of love (how? => [1] and [2]). You can find the most lack of love in materialistic/hedonistic times where the individual coolness is a fashion and mostly nothing else than hidden weakness because of the lack of love. If it is allowed to speak of a dualism between heart and brain, between blood and nerves, then it should also be allowed to speak of a dualism between emotion/emotionality and reason/rationality.
- Register -
|
