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
Your conclusion, which is a result of a complex comparison, is
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).
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. Hegels 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
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 Kants 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
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:
A cell division over 42 hours. The cells were directly imaged in
the cell culture vessel, using non-invasive quantitative phase contrast
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
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.
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according
to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their
So if humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature
and because of about 98% of their culture/s (**),
then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.
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
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 thanfitness,
it is more like capital, power, acceptance,
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
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
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,
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:
8) Recognition / respect / acceptance/ appreciation (cf. Hegel).
9) Will as the thing-in-itself (cf. Schopenhauer - referring
to Kants thing-in-itself, thing-as-such).
10) Fitness (cf. Darwin).
11) Will to power (cf. Nietzsche).
13) Fulfillment of what is set in the beginning of life (cf. Spengler).
14) Genetic program.
15) Being beautiful.
16) Being good (cf. Sloterdijk et al.).
17) Being intelligent.
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
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,
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
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
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 childrens 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
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? -  By practising love;  by enlighten others and
clarifying what love means; (3) by fighting all enemies of love
(how? =>  and ).
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.