Thoughts on the Meaning of Life

[shostakovich]

Since "life" must include all life from single cells to the most complicated forms, what do they have in common? They are temporary (as far as we know). The universe may be temporary with a much longer time span. Can even non-biological (as we know or don't know them) forms that change over time be said to have life? A mountain range emerges from the sea, and gradually erodes. That describes Hawaii. The earth itself is supposed to have been separated from the sun, and will eventually be consumed by it in its own "death throes". If the temporary condition is always a part of life, then there can be no permanent meaning of life. What about temporary meaning?

The best statement I've come across is by the 5th C BC philosopher, Protagoras: Man is the measure of all things".** It makes sense to me. With Barfle's comment to the same effect (Prelude thread), that makes 3 of us. Protagoras meant that nothing is absolutely good or bad (of course, he didn't know George Bush ------------ sorry, Shap. I couldn't resist.), true or false, and that each individual is his or her own final authority. So simple, so eloquent.

I had come to essentially the same conclusion some years back while meditating on the nature of truth. I was sleeping OK in those days. It came to me in the shower (more information than you needed?). If I defined "absolute truth" as all that was and is, it's clearly unknowable. We individuals can only observe a speck of it, and, based on different past experiences, we see it slightly or greatly differently. Since no 2 people will see the same truth, no one can even claim to KNOW the truth. We use the word "know", but we mean (generally without understanding the distinction) "believe".

The only area in which I ever considered absolute truth "knowable" is mathematics. It's a construct of the mind, and not tangible. That makes it permanent ------- beyond the existence of the universe. As a former math teacher, it was very gratifying to be in such a field.
Shos


** Many years ago I developed a lecture titled "A Culture trip Through Music". It had to do with the interaction of music with other disciplines. Travel (Italian Symphony), Magic (Der Freischutz), Science (Ionisation), Psychology (Wozzek), Art (Isle of the Dead), History (the 1812), Religion (too easy), Mythology (Daphnis and Chloe), Literature (Manfred), etc.

Since becoming a docent at our local art museum, I'm taking a similar trip through art. Protagoras, by Juseppe Ribera, was one outcome. I suspect anybody could take some "culture trip" through a favorite hobby or avocation. Have fun.

[barfle]

My secular bent is about to be exposed for all to see, so if I happen to put something down that someone else disagrees with, please remember that all we're doing is sharing our thoughts about Shos's topic.

From an evolutionary standpoint, the "meaning" of life is to make more life. I haven't seen any life forms yet that don't do that. Individual organisms may not, but the choice is simple. Either enough organisms reproduce to propogate the species, or it goes extinct.

You ask: "Can even non-biological (as we know or don't know them) forms that change over time be said to have life?" Based on my statement, the answer is "no." That doesn't mean they don't have history and future, but it does mean that they don't propogate, at least as I understand the term.

You note: "Protagoras meant that nothing is absolutely good or bad.." I've done a little digging into what "good" and "bad" means, and although I'm far from an expert on the topic, I would like to share what I've found so far. Man, having evolved from "wild" animals, has a nature that causes us to want to take whatever we might feel the need for. When an animal is hungry, it wants to eat, so it takes whatever steps are necessary to that end, including killing prey. When an animal is cold, or tired, or feeling whatever deficiency it may have at the moment, it takes steps to alleviate that deficiency. It has no particular sense of responsibility toward others, it's interested in its own survival. There are species that don't line up with this description, which is intentionally intended to illustrate a point.

Well, humans with large brains showed up, and eventually discovered that, through cooperation with other members of their pack, they could kill the bear before the bear killed them individually, and survive to reproduce, so the basic tenet of natural selection was fulfilled.

But this is a learned activity, not necessarily inherent in our natures. So we have this conflict - our innate greed, tempered by our learned understanding of shared responsibility. The only thing that seems to be universally condemned is victimizing a member of your group. Members of other groups are fair game, because they compete with your group for things like land and food and water.

So, what is "good" is really just what improves your group's welfare, and what's "bad" is what detracts from it. A group that does not have standards of behavior that benefit it will not survive, but one that does will prosper.

Many of my more brilliant ideas have come to me in the shower, because that's where my mind goes through the transfer from sleep (random thought patterns, sense is not a requirement) to awake (realization that some ideas just plain suck, while others have merit), so I don't think that's unusual.

I make the distinction between knowledge and belief as that between personal experience and other ways of obtaining information. I know elephants exist because I have seen them in zoos and circuses. I believe they live in the wild in Africa and Asia because I have read about it in works by people I tend to trust.

But you're really concerned about what life means, right? Well, my life means making myself and my family secure and healthy. Then it means making my friends happy with my acquaintance. Then, it very well could mean making myself comfortable with an evening of classical music, or maybe even some good ol' rock and roll, depending on my mood.

[shostakovich]

I read your comment as confirmation of Protagoras, and extended to other life forms, that also measure things according to their needs or wants.

And:"I know elephants exist because I have seen them in zoos and circuses. I believe they live in the wild in Africa and Asia because I have read about it in works by people I tend to trust."

OK, OK, I'll give you "elephants exist" as more than "belief".
Shos

[Shapley]

Freud says (and I'm paraphrasing here, as I don't have the exact reference available) that what sets appart from animals is our desire to improve the environment for the betterment of our offspring. Animals, of course, seek to propogate within the environment, but not change it. I suppose it could be said that evolution seeks to improve the offspring to better survive within the environment.

I don't disagree with Freud on this aspect. I think it can be argued that most of mans greatest progress is geared to make improvements that will outlast the generation that made them. While there is much discussion about the intelligence of such creatures as whales, dolphins, and dogs, the fact remains that none of them seek to alter the environment beyond their own immediate needs. Whether the alterations we've made will ultimately be judged as good or evil, or even whether there will be anyone to judge them at all, is immaterial to the concept.

V/R

Shapley

[dai bread]

Quite a lot of people don't alter their environment either, Shap. They live with what they find. I'm thinking in particular of Australian Aborigines who remained hunter-gatherers for 40 000 years. I have trouble wondering how that could happen, given that most of the Australian environment is pretty harsh.

There are others in Papua/New Guinea, and no doubt elsewhere. I believe there's at least one lot in the Andaman Islands.

Having failed dismally to become a rocket scientist, brain surgeon or Wagnerian bass, I have to get quite basic and say that the purpose of life is to pass on one's genes.

Having done that, and paid for my house so that those who survive me (if any) will be well provided for, I can await whatever life holds with a fair amount of tranquillity. I just hope it's not Alzheimer's.

[analog]

Meaning of life? I dunno. Maybe it's to increase entropy by reducing what's unknown.

Purpose of life? It can only be to dispense what kindness we can. For all we can take with us to an afterlife is perhaps some good memories.

I think it was Elihu said in Job that God speaks to man at night, in his dreams. Carl Jung said his patients made progress when they started paying attention to their dreams. Too many of my dreams have been unlikely coincidences for there to be nothing to this.

Parapsychology is today as much a parlor game as was electricity two hundred years ago. 20th century science was hung up on electromagnetics because Einstein's Dad ran an electromagnet factory.

There's something out there that connects us, and i don't think we'll find it using electromagnetic instruments.

[Shapley]

Dai,

I'm not sure what Freud would have said about the Aborigines. I doubt he ever had one on his couch.

I suppose, like the Bushmen of the Kalahari and other 'primitive' peoples, they've decide that the best way to improve the world for their offspring is to not try to modify it. If the world provides you with all the comfort you need, then there is little you can do to improve upon it, and any permanent change you make can only serve to detract from the world you would leave to you progeny. I think some environmentalists carry that philosophy as well. I believe Freud, being a European, was referring to the march of civilization as a whole, and not to any single citizen or group of citizens. There are those, both as individuals and as a group, who choose either not to join civilizations march, or to actively oppose it. In the final run, however, those who've sought to alter it to create a better world for their progeny have by far been the majority.

History, of course, will determine whether or not the effort was successful.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

The meaning of life?

42, of course.

[barfle]

There are a lot of animals that alter their environment for their own benefit, particularly those that make nests and lodges. I believe we're in a minority that way, but certainly not unique.

[Shapley]

Barfle,

RE:There are a lot of animals that alter their environment for their own benefit, particularly those that make nests and lodges.

True, but none attempt to design lodges or nest designed to outlive themselves. Many outlast them for a few weeks or a few years, but nature eventually reclaims what is hers. Perhaps it's because none have mastered the use of tools to build in stone and steel, but they've had at least as much time as we in the evolutionary chain to develop those skills. There seems to be something that motivates us beyond the mere need to propogate our species.

V/R
Shapley

[piqaboo]

[quote\]originally posted by Shapley:
Many outlast them for a few weeks or a few years, but nature eventually reclaims what is hers.[/quote]
Can you say "Katrina", boys & girls? I thought you could!

[Shapley]

Piq,

True, but many of the structures there have survived Katrina (particularly the earlier structures of the French Quarter). In Greece, many structures in Pompeii survived Mt. Vesuvius, although the same can't be said for the people who occupied them.

The dinosaurs 'ruled' the Earth for millions of years, yet they left only bones and oil for us to remember them by. We humans, however have been around for a mere 200,000 years or so, and have built monuments designed to leave our mark for centuries to come. Yes, as soon as man stops building and maintaining them, nature will reclaim them as it has Ankor Wat, Pompeii, and Chichen Itza. However, while nature will absorb them, over grow them, or bury them, she will not obscure them completely.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 03-13-2006, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[piqaboo]

Termite mounds outlast hundreds of generations of their builders, and only decay very slowly once the colony dies out.
So perhaps its the consciousness of leaving a monument, rather than the monument itself?

[Shapley]

Piq,

I would have to say, yes, it is that we are conscious that we are building something intentionally designed to outlive our own mortal bodies that Freud would have been speaking of. I'll ask him next time I run into him.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Originally posted by Shapley:
True, but none attempt to design lodges or nest designed to outlive themselves. Many outlast them for a few weeks or a few years, but nature eventually reclaims what is hers. Perhaps it's because none have mastered the use of tools to build in stone and steel, but they've had at least as much time as we in the evolutionary chain to develop those skills. There seems to be something that motivates us beyond the mere need to propogate our species.

I'm not able to say what the intent of nest-builders might be, but I do know that many bird nests last several seasons and are either used by the original builders or other birds.

As far as nature eventually reclaiming what is hers, that is true of man-made structures as well. I cite rotting wood, rusting metals, and even worn out LPs.

When you say they have had as much time as we have had to develop skills in long-lasting construction techniques, what they haven't had is our mental ability to test over long times and record the results of those tests.

I agree that we are motivated beyond simple propogation, although that is a pretty strong motivator for lots of activities we engage in.

[Shapley]

Barfle,

I don't disagree, but I will point out that Freud's premise was that we alter the environment in order to improve it for our progeny. Nest-building, regardless of the durability of the nest, is merely designed to aid in the process of procreation. The nest is not designed to improve the world for the hatchlings, who will leave the nest as soon as they are able, it is merely designed to aid in their birth and early development. Once they've taken wing, it is of little consequence to them whether the nest survives or not.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

Barfle,

On the subject of birds: A couple of years ago, a pair of barn swallows built a nest on the side of our house, in a corner where the porch gable joined the wall of the main house. I was fascinated watching them scoop up beaks full of mud and then splash it against the house, until a nest began to take shape. They remained in it all year, finally abandoning it in the Fall. My wife tore it down while cleaning the house early the next Spring.

The swallow returned the later that Spring, either with his new bride or his old one (I don't know if barn swallows are monogamous). When they arrived at the location of the nest, they found it torn down. The female sat on the gutter all day chirping loudly at him, as he attempted to rebuild it (there was no mud hole for him to gather material, so he had a time of it). Apparenlty he gave up the effort after a while, and they flew off. I'm afraid we may have contributed to his divorce. We had not barn swallows the rest of the year.

Last year we had barn swallows again, although they found a new location to build, right outside the window of my study. There is a downspout there that hid it from view, so we didn't realize they were there until the hatchlings began to make their presence known. I've no idea if it was the original pair.

Fascinating birds, and they build nests designed to last more than one season, if they can keep them sheltered from the rain. The nests are neat and are evidence of engineering expertise in their manufacture. An excellent example of avian skill.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I haven't read a lot of Freud (took one psych class in JC over half my life ago) and I don't remember that being covered. But it does seem like something he would explore.

We don't have barn swallows in our neighborhood, but we do have Carolina wrens, sparrows, goldfinches, cardinals, robins, blue jays, junkos, three different species of woodpecker, mallards, Canada geese, and those damnable pigeons. I've even seen a bald eagle soaring over our house, so I get a bit of a chance to observe birds.

When we lived in California, our avian environment seemed limited to some sparrows, ravens, and an occasional mockingbird. We bought a birdhouse we thought was cute and hung it up on the patio cover, where it looked cute and became home to a spider. When we moved to Vahjinyah, we brought it with us, and we found a hook already installed in our eaves to hang it from.

One evening a couple of years ago, I was grilling dinner on the deck, and I noticed a couple of birds going in and out of the birdhouse with all sorts of junk in their beaks. A few weeks later, the activity got even more frantic, and whenever one of the birds would land on the house, a bunch of little cheep cheep cheep sounds came from it. Neither my wife nor I had any idea that the thing would actually be used by a wild bird. That was very cool, and we get a family in there every summer since.

[Shapley]

Barfle,

I have a purple martin house, which hosts several families of purple martin every year, and one bluebird family that returns as well (again, assuming they are monogamous). The bluebirds are quite territorial, and will dive at anyone approaching the birdhouse when there are hatchlings there. The cats spend many hours trying to catch the bird as it dives at them, but so far none have been successful in this endeavor. The purple martins are mildly aggressive, but not nearly so much as the bluebirds.

We also have goldfinches, scarlet finches, cardinals, bluejays, sparrows, red-headed woodpeckers, flickers, hummingbirds, crows, red-winged blackbirds, brown-headed cowbirds, chickadees, wild turkey, hawks, owls, and the occasional great egret. Ducks, geese, and eagles fly overhead. We also have bats (I know, they're not a bird) that fly near the woods at the back of the house.

V/R
Shapley

[lliam]

Nice thread Shos.

I've always believed that:

'Life is simple it's man who complicates it himself'.

When you are very young, you enjoy a sustained illusion that sooner or later something marvellous is going to happen, that you are going to transcend your parents’ limitations… At the same time, you feel sure that in all the wilderness of possibility; in all the forests of opinion, there is a vital something that can be known — known and grasped. That we will eventually know it, and convert the whole mystery into a coherent narrative. So that then one’s true life — the point of everything — will emerge from the mist into a pure light, into total comprehension. But it isn’t like that at all. But if it isn’t, where did the idea come from, to torture and unsettle us?