The apparent absurdity of life

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think the question makes sense. Who is "we"? To whom is the care directed? Who is caring? What is it caring about? How is it caring? Are their more than one way to care?

Well, I'm always a bit baffled when I'm told only the individual (a 'bundle of sensations' with no coherence from where I'm standing) is all that matters. I wondered if the species might have any importance, since we are currently ensuring its destruction.

It's probably more difficult to destroy humanity entirely than you seem to believe. What might happen instead is that a larger number than is customary will suffer the consequences of our follies. But human life will go on, although possibly in more difficult conditions. That wouldn't be the first time either.
EB

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Another note, the only reason we view life as "absurd" is because we expect it to conform to our endless desires, and it doesn't. I don't see a reason why we should expect it to. Longing for what you don't have obviously isn't going to do anything to make life easier.

Our endless desires, which are not so endless in fact, are largely hard-wired and many people get to a point in their lives where there's a mismatch between expectations and outcomes. So, in this sense, life sets us up to find life absurd. It's difficult not to attribute meaning to what people say even though I know they often don't really mean what they say. Yet, what matters here is that even this false meaning I can use it to think new thoughts which might get useful to me. It's not over till it's over.
EB

That doesn't change the fact that longing for what you don't have and saying "poor little me" isn't going to make life easier. What I'm saying is, you have two options: either you can accept it and view these things in a different way, or deny it and continue to be miserable. I know the option I'd rather take.

 

[iolo]

Well, I'm always a bit baffled when I'm told only the individual (a 'bundle of sensations' with no coherence from where I'm standing) is all that matters. I wondered if the species might have any importance, since we are currently ensuring its destruction.

It's probably more difficult to destroy humanity entirely than you seem to believe. What might happen instead is that a larger number than is customary will suffer the consequences of our follies. But human life will go on, although possibly in more difficult conditions. That wouldn't be the first time either.
EB

Well, there's no point in putting money on it, since neither of us will be around to collect, but mine would be on arctic ants, if there are any.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's probably more difficult to destroy humanity entirely than you seem to believe. What might happen instead is that a larger number than is customary will suffer the consequences of our follies. But human life will go on, although possibly in more difficult conditions. That wouldn't be the first time either.
EB

Well, there's no point in putting money on it, since neither of us will be around to collect, but mine would be on arctic ants, if there are any.

Yeah, I agree. Arctic elephants are less likely to make it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Our endless desires, which are not so endless in fact, are largely hard-wired and many people get to a point in their lives where there's a mismatch between expectations and outcomes. So, in this sense, life sets us up to find life absurd. It's difficult not to attribute meaning to what people say even though I know they often don't really mean what they say. Yet, what matters here is that even this false meaning I can use it to think new thoughts which might get useful to me. It's not over till it's over.
EB

That doesn't change the fact that longing for what you don't have and saying "poor little me" isn't going to make life easier. What I'm saying is, you have two options: either you can accept it and view these things in a different way, or deny it and continue to be miserable. I know the option I'd rather take.

You talk as if free-will was a reality. People do whatever they do. They may seem to have options but that's just another of those delusions nature gives us to munch over all our lives. And longing for what you don't have may be just one of the strategy life is using to get people to move their butts and do something about it, like, you know, discover America or something.
EB

 

[iolo]

That doesn't change the fact that longing for what you don't have and saying "poor little me" isn't going to make life easier. What I'm saying is, you have two options: either you can accept it and view these things in a different way, or deny it and continue to be miserable. I know the option I'd rather take.

You talk as if free-will was a reality. People do whatever they do. They may seem to have options but that's just another of those delusions nature gives us to munch over all our lives. And longing for what you don't have may be just one of the strategy life is using to get people to move their butts and do something about it, like, you know, discover America or something.
EB

WE have consciousness anyway, and in some ways it's been very useful, but in most it is just a nuisance, so I suppose the illusion of choice gives it something to think it is doing when it has nothing to do.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The death of the panda species might possibly benefit some kinds of bamboo species, somewhere. The extinction of the human species would certainly benefit many other species all over this planet. Just look at the wildlife at, and around, Chernobyl.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...byl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/

Of course the long-term effects of the radiation (after many more generations) might show themselves to be be disastrous.

The extinction of the human species would also prevent all of the suffering that would have been experienced by the generations of humans that would have existed. They presumably wouldn't care much about not being born, so I'd call that a win-win. Not that I'm in favor of causing humans to go extinct against the will of the people who are currently alive, because obviously they have a say in the matter. Yet, if we suddenly became an infertile species, the last remaining elderly would have a rough time but otherwise it would avert a massive amount of future suffering.

Also gone is any future chance at joy.

 

[4321lynx]

Well, there's no point in putting money on it, since neither of us will be around to collect, but mine would be on arctic ants, if there are any.

Yeah, I agree. Arctic elephants are less likely to make it.
EB

The arctic elephants failed to make it through the last ice age and its sequelae.

 

[PyramidHead]

The extinction of the human species would also prevent all of the suffering that would have been experienced by the generations of humans that would have existed. They presumably wouldn't care much about not being born, so I'd call that a win-win. Not that I'm in favor of causing humans to go extinct against the will of the people who are currently alive, because obviously they have a say in the matter. Yet, if we suddenly became an infertile species, the last remaining elderly would have a rough time but otherwise it would avert a massive amount of future suffering.

Also gone is any future chance at joy.

Joy is good because it improves the lives of people who already exist. We do not need to generate additional people so that they may be 'vessels' for joy. If a meteor extinguished all life on earth tomorrow, the tragedy would be that the current denizens of the planet would be snuffed out. Many people would consider it a worse tragedy that future generations would not be born, but I find that odd; to me, a tragedy means (at the very least) somebody is worse off than they were before it happened. Future generations don't have a well-being to be deprived of, unless they actually come into existence. I care as much about them as I care about the lineage of descendants I could have left by having children of my own, but didn't.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Also gone is any future chance at joy.

Joy is good because it improves the lives of people who already exist. We do not need to generate additional people so that they may be 'vessels' for joy. If a meteor extinguished all life on earth tomorrow, the tragedy would be that the current denizens of the planet would be snuffed out. Many people would consider it a worse tragedy that future generations would not be born, but I find that odd; to me, a tragedy means (at the very least) somebody is worse off than they were before it happened. Future generations don't have a well-being to be deprived of, unless they actually come into existence. I care as much about them as I care about the lineage of descendants I could have left by having children of my own, but didn't.

Interesting. What about questions of policy that will effect future peoples? Say climate change. Is it your position that we should do nothing because the worst of it is a farther off problem? Curious.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That doesn't change the fact that longing for what you don't have and saying "poor little me" isn't going to make life easier. What I'm saying is, you have two options: either you can accept it and view these things in a different way, or deny it and continue to be miserable. I know the option I'd rather take.

You talk as if free-will was a reality. People do whatever they do. They may seem to have options but that's just another of those delusions nature gives us to munch over all our lives. And longing for what you don't have may be just one of the strategy life is using to get people to move their butts and do something about it, like, you know, discover America or something.
EB

It doesn't ultimately matter if we have free will or not, we have the capacity to change our perspective about life. There are things that make life easier, and there are things that do not make life easier. To deny this would be in itself absurd.

 

[DBT]

There is no choice but to change. We change whether we choose to, or not.

 

[PyramidHead]

Joy is good because it improves the lives of people who already exist. We do not need to generate additional people so that they may be 'vessels' for joy. If a meteor extinguished all life on earth tomorrow, the tragedy would be that the current denizens of the planet would be snuffed out. Many people would consider it a worse tragedy that future generations would not be born, but I find that odd; to me, a tragedy means (at the very least) somebody is worse off than they were before it happened. Future generations don't have a well-being to be deprived of, unless they actually come into existence. I care as much about them as I care about the lineage of descendants I could have left by having children of my own, but didn't.

Interesting. What about questions of policy that will effect future peoples? Say climate change. Is it your position that we should do nothing because the worst of it is a farther off problem? Curious.

Oh heavens no. We have every reason to believe that people will go on reproducing, so we'd better be damn sure that we leave future generations a habitable world. I was talking about the specific scenario I originally proposed, wherein humanity goes extinct due to infertility--in that case, we'd know that there would be no next generation, so there would be no sense in enacting policies that would affect them.

 

[Under the Rose]

I hear this thrown around quite a bit through circles of studious people. They spend their lives curious and then eventually conclude that the world and their lives are absurd. I don't buy it anymore.

To start off with the definition of absurd is to be 'wildly irrational'. This isn't only a subjective (and so arbitrary) interpretation of life and the universe, but I'd also go further to argue that life is and works exactly as it should.

And there's the second point. We're a thing called 'life' that's evolved as a part of the universe in which we exist and are a part of. The question then isn't so much 'what's the point'.. it's 'why should there be a point?'. We're a part of the universe that experiences it's transient existence, then we die.

Where people get tripped up, I think, is that they think existence should have some kind of objective purpose, when it clearly doesn't, and shouldn't have to. So because there's no non-transient meaning life must be absurd, the only way people can rationalize the meaningless of it all.

These days I like to think of it instead as a moment of experience, just something that's happening to us.*

*Might have something to do with my sense of self problems

I contemplate that the absurdity lies in the question, "What is the meaning of life?" A better question would be, as has been raised before, "Why do we need to see life as having purpose? What drives us to seek such parameters?"

Is it our biology or our culture that leads us to this constant searching? It is easy to suggest that it is learned behavior or thought and yet I have been a couple of times at a place in my life where I have experienced a distinct sense of absence in my life though I could not put a name to it.

Considering that no two people are going to have the same experience of life makes the whole thing very intriguing and while many aspects might be viewed as absurd, I would not think to apply that descriptor to life itself.

 

[rousseau]

I hear this thrown around quite a bit through circles of studious people. They spend their lives curious and then eventually conclude that the world and their lives are absurd. I don't buy it anymore.

To start off with the definition of absurd is to be 'wildly irrational'. This isn't only a subjective (and so arbitrary) interpretation of life and the universe, but I'd also go further to argue that life is and works exactly as it should.

And there's the second point. We're a thing called 'life' that's evolved as a part of the universe in which we exist and are a part of. The question then isn't so much 'what's the point'.. it's 'why should there be a point?'. We're a part of the universe that experiences it's transient existence, then we die.

Where people get tripped up, I think, is that they think existence should have some kind of objective purpose, when it clearly doesn't, and shouldn't have to. So because there's no non-transient meaning life must be absurd, the only way people can rationalize the meaningless of it all.

These days I like to think of it instead as a moment of experience, just something that's happening to us.*

*Might have something to do with my sense of self problems

I contemplate that the absurdity lies in the question, "What is the meaning of life?" A better question would be, as has been raised before, "Why do we need to see life as having purpose? What drives us to seek such parameters?"

Is it our biology or our culture that leads us to this constant searching? It is easy to suggest that it is learned behavior or thought and yet I have been a couple of times at a place in my life where I have experienced a distinct sense of absence in my life though I could not put a name to it.

Considering that no two people are going to have the same experience of life makes the whole thing very intriguing and while many aspects might be viewed as absurd, I would not think to apply that descriptor to life itself.

In a sense the realities of being human (courting, social ties, work, relationships, kids) can be seen as being pointless, but in another light it's easy to forget that these things aren't something we do, they're who and what we are.

Try walking down the road by a beautiful member of the gender to which you're attracted. Everything in your being will draw you to look at them and it takes effort not to. I'd argue that this attraction is a natural part of what it means to be human. We crave positive relationships, we crave pleasure, we crave sex, we crave comfort, and on and on. These things don't represent a metaphysical, objective purpose, but they are a part of the human condition, and so when those things that we need are lacking we will most definitely feel an absence in our lives. People are not islands, we only exist, thrive, and experience happiness in supportive families and communities.

In that way meaning doesn't come from God or religion, but in the human struggle itself.

 

[Treedbear]

I contemplate that the absurdity lies in the question, "What is the meaning of life?" A better question would be, as has been raised before, "Why do we need to see life as having purpose? What drives us to seek such parameters?"

Is it our biology or our culture that leads us to this constant searching? It is easy to suggest that it is learned behavior or thought and yet I have been a couple of times at a place in my life where I have experienced a distinct sense of absence in my life though I could not put a name to it.

Considering that no two people are going to have the same experience of life makes the whole thing very intriguing and while many aspects might be viewed as absurd, I would not think to apply that descriptor to life itself.

In a sense the realities of being human (courting, social ties, work, relationships, kids) can be seen as being pointless, but in another light it's easy to forget that these things aren't something we do, they're who and what we are.

Try walking down the road by a beautiful member of the gender to which you're attracted. Everything in your being will draw you to look at them and it takes effort not to. I'd argue that this attraction is a natural part of what it means to be human. We crave positive relationships, we crave pleasure, we crave sex, we crave comfort, and on and on. These things don't represent a metaphysical, objective purpose, but they are a part of the human condition, and so when those things that we need are lacking we will most definitely feel an absence in our lives. People are not islands, we only exist, thrive, and experience happiness in supportive families and communities.

In that way meaning doesn't come from God or religion, but in the human struggle itself.

these things aren't something we do, they're who and what we are.

These things don't represent a metaphysical, objective purpose, but they are a part of the human condition,

It seems to me that precisely because they are "what we are" they qualify as an objective purpose. And its not just a part of being human, its a part of being life. Humans have our own set of behaviors which allow the species to survive. Every species is different but the metaphysical fact is that existence requires survival. How one contributes to that survival is where one finds purpose. BTW, "meaning" means that which we are and how we came to be. First, a life form. Next, human beings. Then members of families, nations, communities, religions, forums, etc. These give us meaning. Purpose is derived from meaning. And meaning is sustained by purpose. They are different but intertwined. That's what makes all life special. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ronburgundy]

I hear this thrown around quite a bit through circles of studious people. They spend their lives curious and then eventually conclude that the world and their lives are absurd. I don't buy it anymore.

To start off with the definition of absurd is to be 'wildly irrational'. This isn't only a subjective (and so arbitrary) interpretation of life and the universe, but I'd also go further to argue that life is and works exactly as it should.

And there's the second point. We're a thing called 'life' that's evolved as a part of the universe in which we exist and are a part of. The question then isn't so much 'what's the point'.. it's 'why should there be a point?'. We're a part of the universe that experiences it's transient existence, then we die.

Where people get tripped up, I think, is that they think existence should have some kind of objective purpose, when it clearly doesn't, and shouldn't have to. So because there's no non-transient meaning life must be absurd, the only way people can rationalize the meaningless of it all.

These days I like to think of it instead as a moment of experience, just something that's happening to us.*

*Might have something to do with my sense of self problems

I actually think that that the notion of life being absurd is meant to convey the same idea that you yourself are espousing. It is the notion that their is no point, purpose, or objective meaning to it. It is largely a philosophical rejection of any kind of teleology, acknowledging that all "meaning" is purely subjective and that there is no way the world "should" be (should is inherently subjective) but merely the way the world happens to be.

For me (and I think others who use the phrase), it also expresses rejection of the kinds of overly-simplistic determinism and explanations for events that most people cling to because they cannot handle the chaotic, and largely unknowable reality of all the random contingencies responsible for why X happened instead of Z. That isn't a denial of determinism (no more than an accurate understanding of quantum physics requires denying determinism), but just a recognition that the causal complexity behind each particular moment is unknowable and rarely controllable.

 

[4321lynx]

In a sense the realities of being human (courting, social ties, work, relationships, kids) can be seen as being pointless, but in another light it's easy to forget that these things aren't something we do, they're who and what we are.

Try walking down the road by a beautiful member of the gender to which you're attracted. Everything in your being will draw you to look at them and it takes effort not to. I'd argue that this attraction is a natural part of what it means to be human. We crave positive relationships, we crave pleasure, we crave sex, we crave comfort, and on and on. These things don't represent a metaphysical, objective purpose, but they are a part of the human condition, and so when those things that we need are lacking we will most definitely feel an absence in our lives. People are not islands, we only exist, thrive, and experience happiness in supportive families and communities.

In that way meaning doesn't come from God or religion, but in the human struggle itself.

these things aren't something we do, they're who and what we are.

These things don't represent a metaphysical, objective purpose, but they are a part of the human condition,

It seems to me that precisely because they are "what we are" they qualify as an objective purpose. And its not just a part of being human, its a part of being life. Humans have our own set of behaviors which allow the species to survive. Every species is different but the metaphysical fact is that existence requires survival. How one contributes to that survival is where one finds purpose. BTW, "meaning" means that which we are and how we came to be. First, a life form. Next, human beings. Then members of families, nations, communities, religions, forums, etc. These give us meaning. Purpose is derived from meaning. And meaning is sustained by purpose. They are different but intertwined. That's what makes all life special. Just my 2 cents.

In short life is "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." as Old Bill Shakespeare once said.

 

[Treedbear]

...

It seems to me that precisely because they are "what we are" they qualify as an objective purpose. And its not just a part of being human, its a part of being life. Humans have our own set of behaviors which allow the species to survive. Every species is different but the metaphysical fact is that existence requires survival. How one contributes to that survival is where one finds purpose. BTW, "meaning" means that which we are and how we came to be. First, a life form. Next, human beings. Then members of families, nations, communities, religions, forums, etc. These give us meaning. Purpose is derived from meaning. And meaning is sustained by purpose. They are different but intertwined. That's what makes all life special. Just my 2 cents.

In short life is "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." as Old Bill Shakespeare once said.

I guess that's why we celebrate the 400th anniversary of his death. We gave Charlie Darwin a birthday party at 150.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I contemplate that the absurdity lies in the question, "What is the meaning of life?" A better question would be, as has been raised before, "Why do we need to see life as having purpose? What drives us to seek such parameters?"

I put it as, "why must I justify my own existence?" Even if life is absurd, I too am part of the absurd (especially considering I was born with a genetic disorder, and I could not have survived long without surgery). Oh well, I suppose. I'll do what I can to make my life easier.