V, Not discounting any of your points, I suggest that just as individuals can assign meaning to their lives, collectives of humans (subsets of everyone) can assign "meaning" to human existence. I doubt, as do you, that everyone will ever be on the same page, in this regard.Can you give some examples Tim of what "meaning" or purpose people could assign to humanity? Other than faith-based ones. Plus, is your answer going to be tainted by your own subjective overview? I'm not interested in having a discussion about how we can improve humanity here. That's waaay off-topic. Everybody will give you an awnser with their own subjective overview. Unless you want raw scientific data, it is unreasonable to expect anything else.
I think this "Purpose of Humanity" thing that goes on depends on what we define purpose as.Fine. But there's no need to over-complicate the issue. We are already using terms like "meaning" "purpose" "goals" etc...I'm to blame for that myself. It's all the same in this context. If DNA replication and evolution serve a purpose other than replication-let's hear it.
I'm of the opinion that the only purpose of life and humanity is to continue to exist through successive generations. My reasoning for this is simply because that's what life's function is. The sun makes heat, gravity pulls things down, and life makes more life. Humans do this through individual synthetic purposes that help them thrive.Right. Although I 'm not sure I know what you mean by "individual synthetic purposes".
Everybody will give you an answer with their own subjective overview. Unless you want raw scientific data, it is unreasonable to expect anything else.There you go. And only if we find raw, scientific data on a meaning will we have an answer. Such as super-fine micro-print on DNA strands that say: "Made in Xorchlos". Or buried, deep data tablets in the ground that prove we we're all grown in a giant Vat by other ETs. (but then we simply answer the humanity(or earth-life-DNA) question) The answer to the greater purpose of the Universe will still exist. :lol:
V, Not discounting any of your points, I suggest that just as individuals can assign meaning to their lives, collectives of humans (subsets of everyone) can assign "meaning" to human existence. I doubt, as do you, that everyone will ever be on the same page, in this regard.Can you give some examples Tim of what "meaning" or purpose people could assign to humanity? Other than faith-based ones. Plus, is your answer going to be tainted by your own subjective overview? I'm not interested in having a discussion about how we can improve humanity here. That's waaay off-topic. I don't like to think of my overall subjective view as "tainting" my answers, as that has a pejorative connotation. But of course, it effects my answers. As you point out, everything we are, and do, and think is a product of our evolution as organisms. We humans have, also, developed the capacity to think and form concepts. And each thought may effect another thought. Archelos gave an example of "meaning" or purpose people could assign to humanity. We (some of us) could form and adhere to the concept that our meaning as humans is to maximize our quality of life for all of us, as much as we are able, now, and in our future. Historically, I would say that we humans seem to be moving in that direction, overall, though we have, and do, and will, often fail miserably (and quite possibly we will fail ultimately and absolutely). Still, in the meantime, we could assign that meaning.
There is no meaning to the universe, life in general, humanity, or personally other that what we define by and for ourselves.
Occam
We (some of us) could form and adhere to the concept that our meaning as humans is to maximize our quality of life for all of us, as much as we are able, now, and in our future. Historically, I would say that we humans seem to be moving in that direction, overall, though we have, and do, and will, often fail miserably (and quite possibly we will fail ultimately and absolutely). Still, in the meantime, we could assign that meaning.We could. We should. We seem. Some of us. You're also listing off DNA based behavioral survival codes. Maximizing Quality of life. That's DNA and behavioral systems. What purpose does humanity serve? Why are humans here in the first place? Of course there is no answer. All the rest of this is a derail on how we can collectively improve humanity. Which is waay off-topic. That's what I meant by tainting it with a subjective overview.
...What is the purpose of humanity? This isn't a discussion about how we can make a better world.As is often the case in these sorts of discussions, slight differences in the interpretations of words can throw everything off. I will try this: As Occam eluded to, the only meaning to human existence that can be, is what we ascribe it to be. "Meaning" is a construct of our thought processes. No doubt you agree that we have thought processes, some objective evidence, for that, being that we are writing down our thoughts, currently.
We (some of us) could form and adhere to the concept that our meaning as humans is to maximize our quality of life for all of us, as much as we are able, now, and in our future. Historically, I would say that we humans seem to be moving in that direction, overall, though we have, and do, and will, often fail miserably (and quite possibly we will fail ultimately and absolutely). Still, in the meantime, we could assign that meaning.We could. We should. We seem. Some of us. You're also listing off DNA based behavioral survival codes. Maximizing Quality of life. That's DNA and behavioral systems. What purpose does humanity serve? Why are humans here in the first place? Of course there is no answer. All the rest of this is a derail on how we can collectively improve humanity. Which is waay off-topic. That's what I meant by tainting it with a subjective overview. If what you, subjectively, wish the topic to be, is "Why are humans here in the first place?" then, yes, much is off topic.
Vyazma, why do you keep talking about DNA based behaviors? The only DNA based behaviors we really have are as young young children and maybe puberty related behaviors. Many more of our complex behaviors stem from our brains, which change radically after birth and especially during puberty, which would not be he case if it was all just genetics.
Vyazma, why do you keep talking about DNA based behaviors? The only DNA based behaviors we really have are as young young children and maybe puberty related behaviors. Many more of our complex behaviors stem from our brains, which change radically after birth and especially during puberty, which would not be he case if it was all just genetics.In my experience on this forum, it is all to easy for threads to degrade in to nature v. nurture debates, so hopefully, that will not happen here. I think that Vyazma was essentially referring to the fact that humans have developed as a species, primarily, and foundationally, through evolutionary processes. (i.e., without DNA we would not exist, as we do, nor would we have the ability to respond to our environments, as we do), If you read his statements carefully, he does not leave out environmental influences on our behavior.
Reply to GdB… Sorry I didn’t read all the posts following. Keep the conversation going. I’m just adding my reply here:
Yes, the “Big Book” I was referring to is Being and Nothingness. Very scary thing!
That’s a good way to put it, Existentialism as a reaction on science, not against it; so yes, it is different than Romanticism in that regard.
What I like about Existentialism is just that, working with facts rather than ignoring them or trying to explain them away, as fundamentalist theology / philosophy has been trying to do ever since most of it was proven fairy tales. Humanity did lose it’s place in the “chain of being”, and that upsets very many people down to the bone and marrow, to use a biblical illustration, from the letter to the Hebrews, if I’m not mistaken.
Sartre’s phrase is so lovely! Turns philosophy before on its head. Human beings have no inherent essence, and really we are not until we have ceased to be, i.e. in death. Here Sartre and Heidegger and Nietzsche all have something in common.
Living and becoming in the eyes of and under the scrutiny of the others. Sartre’s “stare” which reduces a human being to an object, and Heideggers’s “everyone is the other and nobody is themselves”. It’s intensely poetic mind games these existentialists put forth. Love this stuff!
But the nihilist part is very important. After science “destroyed everything”, say religion and morality, etc… I mean the way it’s put and being so very afraid of nihilism, the existentialists worked with what’s left, very honestly, and as you say, what’s left is “not much”, but they worked with reality, not clinging to their imaginary goals and wishes.
To me this existentialist stuff is pretty important because it looks at things the way they are. Very helpful to listen to these people.
Michelle
Vyazma, why do you keep talking about DNA based behaviors? The only DNA based behaviors we really have are as young young children and maybe puberty related behaviors. Many more of our complex behaviors stem from our brains, which change radically after birth and especially during puberty, which would not be he case if it was all just genetics.In my experience on this forum, it is all to easy for threads to degrade in to nature v. nurture debates, so hopefully, that will not happen here. I think that Vyazma was essentially referring to the fact that humans have developed as a species, primarily, and foundationally, through evolutionary processes. (i.e., without DNA we would not exist, as we do, nor would we have the ability to respond to our environments, as we do), If you read his statements carefully, he does not leave out environmental influences on our behavior. Yes, thanks Tim. Achrelos, did you inherit all of your organs-including your endocrine system from DNA and evolution? You're central nervous system? Does that form up in the embryo due to DNA? I thought it did. I could be wrong here. So if DNA forms the blueprint for your body to grow glands that secrete hormones, I make the leap and say that DNA is directly responsible for behavior. I use alot of home-brewed colloquialisms. As far as I know genes and DNA just don't translate into getting your fathers nose. Genes and DNA(with other items) are responsible for you Forming into a living, growing being.
If what you, subjectively, wish the topic to be, is "Why are humans here in the first place?" then, yes, much is off topic.Much of this topic concerns Humanism too. Achrelos' intention was to find common grounds between them. I think most people agree now that there is no purpose to humanity. Humanity didn't evolve to suit some interest. The "finding answers to better humanity through common grounds and meanings" definitely falls under the Humanism aspect of this topic. Existentialism might say to this..."Why not?" "Let's try it."
Well, to be fair, the interest that humans evolved for was the survival of humans. That’s exactly why I think that is humanity’s purpose to simply continue humanity. But i take your point.
Well, to be fair, the interest that humans evolved for was the survival of humans. That's exactly why I think that is humanity's purpose to simply continue humanity. But I take your point.Yeah, yeah I'm with ya'. I like to look at it from the DNA perspective myself. And here's why: What about the other hominids before humans? What about the precursors to hominids. And so on... The DNA was always there.(in one shape or another) So the interest was in the DNA. Those wicked looking creatures that scurried along the Ocean Floor long before humans were around. For whatever reasons, we scurried out of the oceans and eventually grew into humans. But yes, the interest behind humans surviving is purely genetic. The complexity, controversy, science, chemistry behind all of that stuff is fascinating.
Not being a professional philosopher, or even a student of philosophy, the term existentialism seems, to me, to be too broadly defined and conflicted in interpretations to be of much use. There seem to be certain tenets of it that make sense to me, and others that don’t, but even various tenets are apparently not agreed upon by various philosophers.
Though I don’t deny, as Michelle seems to suggest, that it may have some utility as poetry.
Though I don't deny, as Michelle seems to suggest, that it may have some utility as poetry.Most definitely. In literature or other arts as well.
.. Achrelos, did you inherit all of your organs-including your endocrine system from DNA and evolution? You're central nervous system? Does that form up in the embryo due to DNA? I thought it did. I could be wrong here. So if DNA forms the blueprint for your body to grow glands that secrete hormones, I make the leap and say that DNA is directly responsible for behavior. I use alot of home-brewed colloquialisms. As far as I know genes and DNA just don't translate into getting your fathers nose. Genes and DNA(with other items) are responsible for you Forming into a living, growing being.This is all correct, but could be construed as incomplete, in explaining the behavior that we develop. Our behavior is also a product of our environment and our historical exposure to our environment. e.g., while our DNA has supplied us with all sorts of potential capacities, this becomes rather meaningless without an environment that keeps one alive and that elicits and shapes the development of potential behavior. When you said "Genes and DNA(with other items) are responsible for you Forming into a living, growing being.", I must assume that you meant the parenthetical "with other items" to include the environmental factors that are also critical. Sorry if I am setting the occasion for a nature v. nurture debate, but, try as I might, I am not always very tolerant of statements that seem to, inaccurately, overemphasize one v. the other, or to exclude one v. the other, in explaining behavior.
This is all correct, but could be construed as incomplete, in explaining the behavior that we develop. Our behavior is also a product of our environment and our historical exposure to our environment..... ...Sorry if I am setting the occasion for a nature v. nurture debate,Yeah. Perhaps you don't remember some of our epic battles with George over this Tim. Damn right environment plays a part!! And yes, you were the one who said you didn't want to bring this up.(N vs.N) :-) I'm good. Maybe Acherlos wants to dispute it.
Believe me, you are preaching to the choir. My desired field of work is in genetics, their importance will not be denied by me. My only point was that our brain’s structure and individual patterns of function, which help determine when to release those hormones, are deeply impacted by our environment and experience, but you seem to have just acknowledged that, which means somewhere along the line I read you wrong, which is my bad.