CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I agree with your statement, however i just want to say that you could figure out your purpose in life and successfully veer off of that path, which is free will, but also, relating to the topic it means that life doesn't need a purpose, and it can just be created and it can bring about meaning and purpose, life can create purpose, but then that begs the question is it a divine plan? who knows
With you on number one; finally another determinist.
Disagree on number two. I do not think that life has a purpose, and yet I greatly appreciate and find meaning in living absent purpose. Meaning is a derivative of personal significance (something matters to me personally) rather than being a derivative of purpose (something matters to the universe). I think that believing humans have a purpose as individuals is an idea which many people seem to find necessary, but I do not think it is absolutely necessary for all people to believe we have such a purpose.
Your life has a purpose regardless of your ability to discover it.
You might have deluded yourself to the theory of existential nihilism but honestly, nihilism only works morally. One cannot ever explain everything by saying it's nothing, that's just stupid. You are real and are truly alive but the reason why is a mystery yet to be found, it does exist but it is very difficult to work out.
I consider "purpose" to imply some universal or deistic design to life, and there is no rational reason why that should be true. Not only do I think such a view lacks substantiation, but I also find reason to doubt it: there is scientific research demonstrating that faith is a consequence of brain structure and chemistry conditioned by socialization of genetic predisposition. There is a human predisposition to want to believe that there is a purpose in our respective lives because it generally allows for us to cope with misfortune more readily thinking that it was meant to happen as a challenge of our faith, or our to make us stronger, or some other rubbish.
I never said that everything is nothing, and I would not support that argument in its most apparent form. I think that everything that occurs is a consequence of cause and effect. What happens does not happen for an abstract reason (fate) but because of everything that preceded. Just because we do not understand why everything is the way it is, or why life originated to begin with, or why the universe exists does not mean superstitious belief about "purpose" is the answer. We do not understand the cause to our effect, but that does not mean it does not exist nor that it is intentional and purposeful.
The only purpose life has is to continue life, but thats not really a purpose, its more of a responsibility that comes with being intelligent and conscious
Seriously? Basic science: when you die your conscious self no longer exists. The brain is no longer functional, nor is any of the rest of the body. This is a markedly different state from life.
Just because scientific understanding continues to develop does not make all current knowledge worthless. Do you hold equal incredulity about gravity? That we need to breath oxygen? That our stomach digests our food? Some facts are facts. That our conscious sense of self is seated in our physical brain structure is such a fact.
I do not understand why there has to be a purpose or objective. Why is it not enough that we are alive and that we have experiences and feel emotions in response to them? Does those experiences having a purpose really make them more profound or meaningful? To the contrary, I think that it cheapens the lived experience to think it has to exist for a purpose rather than seeing it simply as existing for itself.
I love the way you posted this question, and wish I have done so earlier on. The reason this question pleases me is because this question has a good amount of relevance to how I feel about the purpose and meaning of life. Meaning to me from how I've seen it used in society does not equal purpose, meaning from how I observed it to mean is to refer to what "X" means as a noun possessed by "X" (Ironic statement?). For example what does it mean to put two apples in an empty basket and then another two apples into an empty basket? The meaning of this is that there are four apples in said basket. Another example, let say I hold a bouncy ball few feet above the ground and drop (whether intentional or accidental) what is the meaning of this scenario is that the ball will fall, hit the ground, bounce back up, etc. However the ball didn't necessarily have a purpose.
Hi Jace, I know this debate's pretty old, but I just had a fun thought for this sort of topic, and didn't feel like starting a whole new debate.
I play video games, I don't know if you're familiar with them so I'll give a quick explanation of the things I'll mention: (At least in single player games) There can be games composed of linear levels with only one or two 'goals' to complete, and you can't stray from the path very much.
There are also games that have big open worlds for you to explore, where you can do whatever you like, and can choose between an array of missions, or just no missions at all.
To reiterate, the linear games have a set purpose (in a way god-given), and the open world type games do not, only the purpose you give yourself. I find the experience of playing an open world game much more 'meaningful,' even though it is somewhat purposeless, other than the purpose of achieving goals I set for myself.
Defining the word meaningful is hard, but I would say that something which has more value to me, and is more personal/unique is more meaningful to me in this context. The value of playing an open world game is to me much greater than a linear one, maybe because I'm in control, and I decide what my purpose is, just like in a life with no set, objective, purpose. It's also much more personal/unique than a linear game, as nobody else will have had the exact same experience to me in an open world game.
I think this is pretty comparable to life, and that without a set purpose (other than what you give yourself), life is even more meaningful.
I much prefer a sandbox to linear game play as well, and for the same reason really. I don't like being stuck on a track, and find it less rewarding. It's an interesting parallel to draw with meaning and free will, and I hadn't really thought about it before.
I'm getting the impression you might not be a determinist; accurate? For clarity, I am (well, technically I'm a no-free-will-either-wayist because I allow for quantum indeterminacy but don't think it permits for free will).
There's a pretty big difference to me between playing the linear game and real life being determined, though. IRL, my brain responds to the environment acting upon it and determines what I will do and I don't believe I control that at all. But it can still be satisfying because I'm doing what I want to do, whereas in the linear game I can't do what I want to do. As long as part of what's determined is that everything else which is determined for you is congruous with what you'd want to do, it shouldn't be dissatisfying the way the linear game is. And maybe that's an insight in itself, too... that we're dissatisfied when we want to be something other than what we are.
Believing that I live a determined life (can that be used interchangeably with having a set purpose?) doesn't cheapen my experience of living at all. I'm not sure if it would feel more meaningful if I believed it wasn't determined, though, because I have no idea what it's like to believe it. I don't have an intuition that it'd matter to me that I was choosing freely, though, because it's not the choosing that makes it rewarding. What is it about having an option that makes life more meaningful to you?
On rereading before submitting I realize I interjected a lot of determinism stuff into this and you were really more focused on the effects of set purpose on meaningfulness... I'm not sure I was totally responsive; let me know if not and I can redirect myself?
Weird, I definitely responded to this a while ago. I must've done something wrong somehow as the website didn't pick it up. I'll respond now.
"I'm getting the impression you might not be a determinist; accurate?"
Actually, I'm probably a determinist too. I haven't spent very long thinking about it myself so I'm unsure, but it seems to be a sensible position.
"I'm getting the impression you might not be a determinist; accurate?:
"Believing that I live a determined life (can that be used interchangeably with having a set purpose?) "
No, I at least not in the way I mean. By set purpose, I mean one that's given to you, rather than one that you create. With determinism, your purpose may be set in some way, but it's not really given to you, right?
"What is it about having an option that makes life more meaningful to you?"
I suppose it's just that it makes it your life in a way, if you don't pick your own purpose, then it's hard to say it's really your life. It makes you life more unique, and that kind of makes it more valuable, at least to me, in the same way that the mona-lisa would be worthless if Da Vinci had painted seven billion of them. (things might be different if the set purpose was different for different people and/or if it was always what I would have chosen anyways) I don't want to be the same as everyone else, I suppose it's just my opinion, and other might find their life more valuable with a set purpose, but the question is "Does life need a purpose to have meaning?" so in my case it's the answer is no. (at least if you meant a set objective purpose, rather than a subjective one) To answer the question, if my life had no purpose of any sort, not even that I created for myself, then there wouldn't be much reason to value it.
"On rereading before submitting I realize I interjected a lot of determinism stuff into this and you were really more focused on the effects of set purpose on meaningfulness... I'm not sure I was totally responsive; let me know if not and I can redirect myself?"
That is indeed correct, you can just respond to what I say above now. I may have rushed my answer a little as I was frustrated to have lost what I wrote the first time.
I had no particular type of 'purpose' in mind when I made the debate; I was deliberately vague so others could make what they would of the concept. I confess, I was largely interested in how people might distinguish between 'purpose' and 'meaning'. Unless I misunderstand, for you life has meaning if you value it (i.e. if it means something to you). 'Purpose' has become somewhat more complicated in our discussion...
You identify 'set purpose' as one which is given rather than being internally derived, and ask whether determinism gives purpose even if it sets it. I'm curious about this distinction between setting and giving; 'given' suggests a giver, but what is supposed about this giver which sets it apart from non-giving determinants that may merely set purpose? For instance, if evolutionary determinism creates set purpose then what stops us from concluding that it gives purpose? I don't see a difference between setting and giving, unless the latter entails a free and conscious agent. Set purpose, then, would be distinguished by its origin from what we might call 'determined function'; it's the intention of the free consciousness that gives function purpose. (Also, does 'set purpose' mean the same thing as 'objective purpose' as you're using the terms?)
As for subjective purpose, do you think there's a difference between that and subjective value? You say that absent purpose of any sort, including what you make for yourself, that there wouldn't be much reason to value your life. But it strikes me that purpose and value are really talking about the same thing here, unless there's some difference you see between them?
From your comments, it also seems like having a set purpose alone isn't enough to cheapen your life since you add that it might be different if that set purpose were unique and in conformance with your desires; accurate? I hadn't really considered that the set purpose could be uniform, largely because I don't think purpose could be contrary to one's desires and still pertain to them... I act upon my pleasure and value my life only insofar as I take my pleasure from it. If my set purpose conformed to my interests then it redundant and doesn't affect the value I place on my life. If my set purpose were to do other than I please then it would be that purpose which is cheapened to me, rather than my pleasure, and I would not comply. I think the only way a set purpose could lead me to condemn the value of my life is if I could be compelled towards that purpose and against my own desires... but that seems implausible, as I've never known myself to act by anything but my own internal promptings. (Which is, perhaps, why determinism is so closely related to this discussion for me that I can't seem to leave it out! Hopefully I've been a bit more responsive this time...)
P.S. Too bad about the previous lost response. Always a frustration, that!
"Unless I misunderstand, for you life has meaning if you value it (i.e. if it means something to you)"
That is correct.
You asked; "but what is supposed about this giver which sets it apart from non-giving determinants that may merely set purpose? " and; "Also, does 'set purpose' mean the same thing as 'objective purpose' as you're using the terms?"
Okay: What I mean by a set/given purpose is one that could be considered 'correct,' but a determined one isn't necessarily 'correct.' Correct purpose, I suppose, would be the same as objective purpose, and when I say set purpose I mean an objective one.
"As for subjective purpose, do you think there's a difference between that and subjective value?"
I guess there's not much of a difference. Maybe there's your value to others but that might be twisted around into purpose somehow. If meaning = value, and value = purpose, then purpose = meaning, answering the original question.
"From your comments, it also seems like having a set purpose alone isn't enough to cheapen your life since you add that it might be different if that set purpose were unique and in conformance with your desires; accurate?"
Accurate.
"If my set purpose conformed to my interests then it redundant and doesn't affect the value I place on my life. If my set purpose were to do other than I please then it would be that purpose which is cheapened to me, rather than my pleasure, and I would not comply."
That seems the same for me also.
You've been more responsive this time, so thank you.
Claiming that we have meaning because we exist seems like circular reasoning to me. Why does our existence translate into meaning? Because meaning derives from existence? Neither follows from the other in my estimation; we can exist without that existence having meaning.
