Welcome to Gaia! ::

About this thread:
There are no limits to what you can discuss as long as it does not violate Gaia TOS and the guild rules. The only requirements are to be logical and creative, not to take anything personal or get emotionally involved (or you will lose horribly), and to have a legit/valid argument (in other words, it should have legit reasons: correct facts, unbiased, and relevant to the topic discussed). Since there is an educational aspect to cover, due to the forum being like a University, there will be definitions and explanations given upon request (and perhaps the occasional addition of a summary from text books). Do not be afraid to ask anything and everything (that is relevant, of course), and don’t be afraid to argue until everyone else accepts your opinion (it’s a Sophist thing)!

PS. Please don’t make too many spelling and grammatical errors in your passion for your opinions – it’s not seen as professional.

And that’s that. Start arguing - I mean philosophizing!


Past topics: Morality and Ethics,
Current Topic: What is the purpose of life?

Well ultimately, every concept there is has been created by mankind. Take away man and you are left with only animals on earth which do not have the ability to ask conceptual questions in the first place. So it is save to say that morals and ethics is just another man made abstract concept.

That is to say, without mankind there is no right or wrong, good or bad, events will take place within the animal kingdom, animals will eat other animals' babies - sometimes their own - and that will just be things which took place. The animals themselves function on instincts, the most important one being survival, survival of the self then survival of the species.

Humans though have the ability to question everything, but just because we have the ability to create a concept doesn't mean that it exists. I can for example think of a little green alien man that has no resemblance to anything on earth and define it as an Alien. That doesn't mean it exists, of course it might because we are talking about something non-abstract, but when we move over to things more abstract, things like moral, ethics, honor, dignity and such, then just because we defined the concept of those things, we put a name to a certain situation, does not mean they actually exist.

BUT, in some extent humans are just animals, thus we have instincts and thus tendencies towards certain things. Like with animals survival is also the most important instinct, thus even without a highly functioning brain, humans will not kill their offspring or those who care for and support them. Excluded those with psychotic problems, because their brains are functioning wrong, but for example if we look at a completely mentally deficient person, who can not care for himself, it is unlikely that they will harm those who try to feed him.

So what I'm suggesting is that morals and ethics like we know them mainly came from instincts. At first this was very basic, the morals and ethics of the rulers were followed. A king could have someone killed, or take someone's property without any problem, but that same king would not have it that someone kill him or take his property. So moral was completely subjective and determined by who was in charge. Later people grew restless of the treatment they received from their leaders and the only way a leader could prevent a rebellion was to grant them their wish and thus began the move towards equality. Morals and ethics where "globalized", what was punishable for one was punishable for all, but this view still spawned from the subjective view of our theoretical king, which ironically would be the same for all people in his position, we know this for we see the same basic laws (stealing and killing) occurring all over even with places which had no contact with each other.

So in short, what we think is right or wrong, is subjective, it stems from instincts, but we are taught and that ideas are refined from a young age, so what ever the main populace thinks right or wrong at that given time, and of course whether the leading body feels that the general populace is correct, we perceive as the moral and ethic code. Of course, when those codes are a bit more random in themselves, for example racism and such, those who have a highly functioning brain have the ability to question what has been taught. As humans progressed more and survival seemed not the only drive force morals and ethics became more refined but was still the product of one or more people expressing their subjective thought and the leading body either accepted or rejected the proposed codes.

Have at it.

Whatever is "just" and "correct" can be defined by two bodies: those in power, or the people themselves.

As long as those in power follow the people's wishes, it is "legitimate"; otherwise, it is "oppressive."

For as long as the people follow the rules imposed on them by their respective governments, they "abide" by the laws; otherwise, they are "criminals."

If those definitions can be intertwined with one another. there is "justice." And that same justice is bound to benefit one and hurt another. Those benefited usually claim they have attained it, while those hurt are claiming that they were treated unfairly.

When these conflicting definitions discourage man, he turns to religion for comfort. Almost no one questions religion because people believe it was inspired by a god whose wisdom is said to be undisputed. It is religion that keeps the definitions of what is "good" and what is "bad" from blurring out in a society.

This week's topic: What is the Purpose of Life?

Note: Please do not simply state what you think to be true on the subject, but prove those of others to be wrong. Otherwise the conversation will never be concluded and this thread will not fulfill it's purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sphinx's approach is pessimistic and limiting - it limits what we can know and the acquisition of what we should know in order to reach our full potential or entelechy and fulfill our destiny. We cannot fulfill our destiny, because we lack this truth, rendering our existence useless and purposeless.
If our purpose in life is predestined, it explains the phenomenon of our ignorance of it and allows us to fulfill our destiny without the greater truths (thus providing more freedom in that aspect).

People need a goal to live towards. This is why so many religions suggest an afterlife of some kind. If they feel purposeless and such, humanity would take a steep dip in, well, everything (increased chaos, decrease in morality and productivity). Why do we live then? What keeps us going when times are hard? People need some sort of goal or source of hope and sense of purpose (it could be anything, really).

My theory regarding the purpose of life is greatly based off Aristotle's teleology: everything strives towards a goal. The entelechy of an acorn is the oak tree. The specific (predestined, as mentioned before) goals of humans (beings of rational thought/reason) are unknown to us. It may or may not be in the goals we set for ourselves. This theory allows us to work towards an unknown end that might be different for each individual.

However (upon further investigation), don't we all strive - unconsciously - towards the same thing? We go about our own ways that we think might get us there, but we share the same dream - to be happy. This is not your regular happiness that you feel when winning a game or being with the ones you love. The term Aristotle uses is eudaimonia and should be considered as "having a life worth living" instead of being confused with pleasure.

That's my point of view: our purpose is to live a life worth living (it's culture free). Feel free to oblige.