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 do not think there is any cosmic or universal meaning to my life. The only meaning in my life is that with which I personally imbue it; this meaning originates from my emotional condition and is purely subjective.
I like this stance. To me it seems like the most solid basis we can have for what we call 'meaning'. Meaning in context of things like purpose and morality always has an emotional component which isn't a bad thing per se. But it adds a component of unpredictability to our life. Our likes and dislikes and our understanding of our everyday lifes change all the time, and so having a meaningful existence can be challenging. I guess that's why existentialism has such a big role in contemporary philosophy. It almost borders on nihilism. By the same token, I think people have always feared meaninglessness, and I think this is one of the primary reasons why religion has been very popular. People like to have some constant, that they can build their life upon. Isn't that exactly what Christianity is about? If you look at some of the answers in this exact thread you will see that people see that the purpose of their lives is to get in tune with God and do what follows naturally from such a relationship. In other words, their constant in life is God, a being that per definition is infinitely compassionate. So not only is it a constant, it's also a very positive constant. Today there's a strong tendency towards choosing the natural laws of science as the constant in life, and then try to discover the beauty that flows from these scientific laws. This constant is different because scientific laws are inherently void of any meaning. Instead, the job to find anything positive in them is on the shoulders of the scientist. Such a thing is very possible though. I think anyone who has heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson talk would agree.
I genuinely appreciate getting to read your responses.
I like this stance. To me it seems like the most solid basis we can have for what we call 'meaning'. Meaning in context of things like purpose and morality always has an emotional component which isn't a bad thing per se. But it adds a component of unpredictability to our life. Our likes and dislikes and our understanding of our everyday lifes change all the time, and so having a meaningful existence can be challenging. I guess that's why existentialism has such a big role in contemporary philosophy. It almost borders on nihilism.
Emotion is not an inherently negative force, I agree. Though I personally value reason informed by emotion rather than the reverse, for reasons I could elaborate upon if you were interested.
More to the point, I do not feel unduly distressed by the unpredictability you observe this as introducing into our lives. Unpredictability is the closest approximation of reality in life, I think, and I see no reason to fight this with any expectation of predictability. My cognitive state is not a fixed absolute, and so naturally any purpose or meaning (or even morality, if I ascribed to it) I experience is impermanent and non-absolute as well.
I am uncertain as to what you intend by observing the existentialist and nihilistic elements of this perspective, if indeed you had any intention behind the remark beyond casual observation.
By the same token, I think people have always feared meaninglessness, and I think this is one of the primary reasons why religion has been very popular. People like to have some constant, that they can build their life upon. Isn't that exactly what Christianity is about? If you look at some of the answers in this exact thread you will see that people see that the purpose of their lives is to get in tune with God and do what follows naturally from such a relationship. In other words, their constant in life is God, a being that per definition is infinitely compassionate. So not only is it a constant, it's also a very positive constant.
More than meaninglessness, I think our species has long possessed a fear of the unknown or uncertain. Meaninglessness is merely one possible manifestation of that larger source of anxiety. I agree, however, the religion is a byproduct of that very fear and that the connection is rather blatant in observing everyday commentary around the matter.
I think it is false to state that God is synonymous with infinite compassion, both as personal belief and actualized reality. Not all who believe in god(s) believe in the compassionate deity, and throughout history vengeance and wrath have been at least equal parts to the idea of god(s) as compassion. It is difficult for me to view any coping mechanism premised and driven primarily by fear as a "very positive constant". While religion was an inevitable development in the evolution of the human species, it is very much an aspect of mixed consequence. Certainly, I should say it is an unfortunate though apparent necessity and one which I should hope we do eventually evolve beyond the need for. When we do that I suspect it will mean the evolution past fear as a strong primary motivator in human thought and conduct.
Today there's a strong tendency towards choosing the natural laws of science as the constant in life, and then try to discover the beauty that flows from these scientific laws. This constant is different because scientific laws are inherently void of any meaning. Instead, the job to find anything positive in them is on the shoulders of the scientist. Such a thing is very possible though. I think anyone who has heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson talk would agree.
I would not necessarily say the tendency is strong, as most people persist in elevating emotionally driven conclusions before scientific reason and evidence. The very compulsion to find "beauty" in scientifically probable truths (i.e. "natural laws") is a representation of this in my opinion. Beauty is the projection of a subjective value judgement onto the pursuit of a more highly objective perception of reality. This projection is done out of a need or desire for emotional gratification and can limit the actual efficacy of the pursuit itself (at best it has no effect upon the pursuit).
Unpredictability is the closest approximation of reality in life, I think, and I see no reason to fight this with any expectation of predictability. My cognitive state is not a fixed absolute, and so naturally any purpose or meaning (or even morality, if I ascribed to it) I experience is impermanent and non-absolute as well.
I agree that 'unpredictable', even 'chaotic' is an accurate way to describe life and the world in general. I also agree that this predicament of life leads one's cognitive state to be impermanent and non-absolute as well. The life of the mind is just as chaotic as the world itself. I do believe people often get frustrated with all this flux and change. In Buddhism this uneasiness is called the viparinama-dukkha, suffering of change. It is said that people are unhappy when they try to cling on to impermanent things as if they are permanent. I should note that I think this relates directly to your point that "our species has long possessed a fear of the unknown or uncertain".
It is difficult for me to view any coping mechanism premised and driven primarily by fear as a "very positive constant".
Yeah I realize that's actually true. I would assume though, that it indeed is possible to approach (some) God not out of fear and dissatisfaction with life, but out of curiosity and well, love. In relation to the all pervading impermanence of things, the question for theists really becomes if they can somehow make some image of a loving God static. But love of God constantly dwindles away if not taken care of. One has to work hard to do such a thing. This is obviously clinging, and in my shortish life, clinging hasn't ever been useful. In fact, clinging to ends and ideals like that is a major source of error and pain in my life, equally so in my family and friends.
It is difficult for me to view any coping mechanism premised and driven primarily by fear as a "very positive constant". [...] Certainly, I should say it is an unfortunate though apparent necessity and one which I should hope we do eventually evolve beyond the need for.
I couldn't agree more. I hope that some day people could just be content with life as it is. When I use the phrase meaning of my life, I don't try to ascribe some kind of metaphysical property whatever is going to happen to me, and whatever has happened to me. More so, when I talk of the past, I do sense that there are some currents, though they fade away and turn into new tendencies, new dreams, new hopes, new experiences. So while I am constantly changing and never exactly the same from day to day, hour to hour, I do however feel like whatever has happened, makes sense on some level. While I wouldn't call it purpose or spiritual aspiration or anything, I would call my experiences meaningful.
Again, as you have pointed out, this is merely extrapolation from my own subjective perspective of things. I can not prove that my life makes sense. I can't even explain to myself why I think so. I believe this goes straight back to our what we discussed above. Life is chaotically complicated, so is whatever goes on in the brain. It's impossible to make sense of it all. Things just happen with no obvious explanation. I believe that when I sense some kind of meaning, I am only bordering on a superficial kind of understanding of what is going on in my life. It may be subjective, but if an empathetic person had seen what I had seen, I guess that person would be able to relate. That's why I like sharing experiences with people instead of having them alone. It easier to talk about the experiences with people who were there. They can relate. I think this is one kind of reason to suppose that life can be meaningful. It's reasonable to suppose because people can relate meaningfully to each others experiences. So I don't believe there's a meaning of life. There are bits and pieces, I sense different meanings (emphasis on plural) at different times. They are always impermanent, but I wonder if I had a more full understanding of what was going on, my sense of meaning may prolong, include more things. In the end I don't care much. Deriving a full explanation of how my brain works is not only useless, it's impossible. I care about dealing skillfully with what is thrown at me. If a sense of meaning helps with this, I welcome it with my arms open. If it gets in my way I will discard it... Yeah, I think that's what I believe...
The very compulsion to find "beauty" in scientifically probable truths (i.e. "natural laws") is a representation of this in my opinion. Beauty is the projection of a subjective value judgment onto the pursuit of a more highly objective perception of reality. This projection is done out of a need or desire for emotional gratification and can limit the actual efficacy of the pursuit itself (at best it has no effect upon the pursuit).
Well yeah, it ought not to get in the way of scientific pursuits, though with all it's subjective value, I still think it can be a quite useful endeavor, useful in the sense that it make it easier to appreciate life and be happy with just being here.
I agree that 'unpredictable', even 'chaotic' is an accurate way to describe life and the world in general. […] I should note that I think this relates directly to your point that "our species has long possessed a fear of the unknown or uncertain".
I agree, and it should come as little surprise I suspect for you to learn that I was once a practicing Buddhist and that some of its ideas (esp. non-attachment and impermanence) continue to influence my perspectives.
Yeah I realize that's actually true. I would assume though, that it indeed is possible to approach (some) God not out of fear and dissatisfaction with life, but out of curiosity and well, love.
I disagree. I think that God is purely a byproduct of the human imagination borne of and perpetuated by fear and dissatisfaction. Any supernatural force that could exist would, I think, be so wholly divorced from the various human conceptions of “god” as to render application of that term inappropriate.
In fact, clinging to ends and ideals like that is a major source of error and pain in my life, equally so in my family and friends.
As it has been in my experience as well.
So while I am constantly changing and never exactly the same from day to day, hour to hour, I do however feel like whatever has happened, makes sense on some level. While I wouldn't call it purpose or spiritual aspiration or anything, I would call my experiences meaningful.
I certainly think that the perception of meaningful experience is legitimate, but I also think there is considerable difference between that and actual meaning or purpose in life.
I think this is one kind of reason to suppose that life can be meaningful. It's reasonable to suppose because people can relate meaningfully to each others experiences. So I don't believe there's a meaning of life. There are bits and pieces, I sense different meanings (emphasis on plural) at different times. They are always impermanent, but I wonder if I had a more full understanding of what was going on, my sense of meaning may prolong, include more things.
And, again, I think these are very crucial distinctions from the absolutism and singularity of meaning and purpose as they are usually considered. Even so, I still wrestle with even the notion of multiple meanings as it still seems to imbue the emotional sense with an air of objective legitimacy that I do not know exists.
In the end I don't care much. Deriving a full explanation of how my brain works is not only useless, it's impossible. I care about dealing skillfully with what is thrown at me. If a sense of meaning helps with this, I welcome it with my arms open. If it gets in my way I will discard it... Yeah, I think that's what I believe...
I can understand that, I think, as I was once in a very similar place. I am now in one in which these matters are not particularly compelling to me.
Well yeah, it ought not to get in the way of scientific pursuits, though with all it's subjective value, I still think it can be a quite useful endeavor, useful in the sense that it make it easier to appreciate life and be happy with just being here
Without moderation, it can also be one of the greatest distractions and detractors. Emotion should never come first in my opinion, but should function only to inform reason.
I can understand that, I think, as I was once in a very similar place. I am now in one in which these matters are not particularly compelling to me.
Haha, yeah I noticed. Grand philosophical speculations about the ultimate meaning of my life are equally unimportant in my life as well. Even if I assume that an ultimate meaning of my life exists, I still believe that whatever this meaning might be is completely unknowable. For all I know, if an omniscient being were to ponder my life, he could derive not one unique, but multiple interpretations of my life. That's how it's been my entire life. There's always been a different interpretation.
The existence of an ultimate meaning would contradict this pattern, so even if I had the ability to hold every detail of my life within conscious control, I still couldn't find a meaning of my life. I guess it's because meanings always implicitly state something about the future. For instance, the meaning of my current life says something about what kind of life I might be moving towards. Another interpretation of my current would say that I am moving somewhere different. Both could be true, both could be wrong.
But I can't help to care about meanings. I wonder if it's one of the habits nature has given us to control the trajectory of our life. To give us more control.
I certainly think that the perception of meaningful experience is legitimate, but I also think there is considerable difference between that and actual meaning or purpose in life.
I think I agree with you here. I don't believe there's a purpose that's externally imposed on me. I have a very pragmatic relationship with 'meanings' and 'purposes'. But because of this pragmatism, I feel an urge to decipher an ultimate meaning of my life. Such a thing would be very useful to know. So I guess my disagreeing with you lies not in the nature of meaning, but what significance one should place in it.
You raise some interesting points, particularly with respect to future projection via inferred meanings. I think you are correct in your observation that we place different value upon that mechanism, and I suspect this stems in part from my view that our sense of control is illusory rather than actual. Ultimately, I can respect if not agree with your perspective on this and have found our conversation enjoyable. I think that it is, perhaps, nearing its end though; yes? I find I have little else to add without becoming repetitive...
If sentences could answer for themselves, and I were to ask this sentence when my life would have purpose, the answer would be "when your life has purpose". It resembles answering the question "what is the meaning of life" with "the meaning of life is the meaning of life". It's a tautology.
This sentence isn't constructive in any sense, but it doesn't restrict what a purpose is in any way either. I could easily let 'purpose' be equal to 'eating nachos' which would yield the following sentence "the purpose of my life is to have a life eating nachos".
In this sense it appears you have a very relaxed understanding of what a life with purpose is. It appears that as long as the individual thinks that life has purpose it's enough reason to call it a purpose. In other words, the mere fact of describing something as a purpose makes it into an actual purpose. In many ways this is the ultimate nihilist paradise (pun intended) since this basically implies that everything is the purpose of life.
Yes, and it is entirely relevant. Your observation is that life should have purpose, and a purpose expressly implies direction towards something other than life itself. Within your perspective life becomes a means to an end, rather than an end to itself. My question is why this is necessary, and why life needs to be lived with purpose.
(Note: I do understand the distinction between life with purpose and a purpose to life; my argument is that they both construct life as a means to an end.)
You're right, when you base it off the premise that my statement only has one interpretation. I don't observe the obligation of a purpose. The question is seeking meaning within life. life has no meaning, unless you find individual purpose. Which we all eventually find out our own purpose. life holds value only when we have purpose. The question can't be answered in an individual perspective. Due to the fact we all find perceive a different version of value, what life could mean. Something we all have is purpose and we all live. Basically saying, "A meaningful life is a life that holds purpose." Any other hypothesis is in and individual perspective, meaning people answer this question thinking their meaning is life's meaning.
Thank you for the clarification, but I do still respectfully disagree with your statement. Living my life for the sake of life is entirely fine with me, and I feel no need to fill it with any purpose at all in order to value it. The things I do, what I strive towards... I do not act or pursue things for any felt sense of purpose, but simply because I do them. This is what I mean by life as its own end independent of purpose. There is a chance I am misunderstanding your use of the word "purpose", but by its common conception its usage here does to me still imply an individual purpose causing life to be directed towards something other than living itself.
Not just worship. My relationship with Jesus involves having a Friend that i can turn to when Im hurting and express my needs and feelings without being cast into Hell.
You're probably talking to yourself. That is not to say that God does not exist, though. Remember when God told Moses his name? He said: "I Am." Say that out loud and tell me who God is.
Here is the response a person who experienced an NDE received when asking, "where is God?":
"How can you see that which you are yourself a part of? We are all expressions of God. When you see with your eyes, you see through the eyes of God and he experiences reality through yours. When you speak to God, you speak to yourself. We are one and the same, there is no division or separation. You can no more ‘see’ God than your hand can see you, for it is a part of you and functions because of you and for your purposes, as well as it’s own. There is no separation. Any that seems to exist is an illusion. The light that surrounds us here is God. It is our source of being and is given freely to all."
Meaning in MY life individually? I would assume that if we do have a purpose in life, then we all share it. I do not think that we exist to worship God. That makes him sound a bit like an egomaniac. I think that if anything, our existence is a learning experience. Maybe a way for us to grow and gain knowledge about ourselves. What our purpose should be is to try and live in harmony with each other and nature. I read a quote once that said something like, "we live on this planet like we have another one we can go to."
We abuse our environment for really stupid reasons. We go to war for really stupid reasons. We often arrest people for really stupid reasons. There are people who go outside and shoot animals for fun... What the fuck? I would love it if one day we landed on an alien planet and found that it's inhabitants did everything right. How stupid would we feel if we saw that they were able to live simply and get along without any problems? Every inhabitant happy and without suffering. They'd look at us, and despite how advanced our technology is, see a bunch of savages.
I do not think it is lights out after death. That is just too difficult of a concept to grasp, in my opinion. Some may say, "well, you don't remember anything from before birth do you? It will be just like that." That may be, but I also do not remember anything from when I was an infant, but I know I existed then. I can't even remember most of my dream from last night... But I know I had one. If we have always existed, the limitations of our human brains would obviously prevent us from remembering. Memory improves as our brains develop, but we aren't going to remember much of anything from when our brains were still in their early stages. Much like certain memory chips can contain more information than others, the same goes for our brains.
I think that God may in fact be just as curious as to why he (although, I doubt God has a gender) exists, as much as us... And that may in fact be our purpose. To try and further understand what we are. It may be that our brains act as an antennae of sorts, and we are all feeding off of the same source, but at different frequencies, so to speak. Maybe our purpose is to all get to the same frequency.
Nikola Tesla said two things which apply greatly to this idea. One, he said: "If you want to understand the secrets of the universe, you need to think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration." And the other thing he said was: "My brain is only a receiver. In the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength, inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists."
I do not know if he is right, but it is a fascinating idea. One that actually makes sense if you think about it long enough. So, if we are in fact eternal beings, not only being from the same source, but all of us actually ARE the source, then I would have to assume that there is a purpose behind this experience of limitation.
We really do live on this planet like we have another one we can go to. It seems like your conception of our purpose relates fundamentally with morality. I think this rings quite true. I think anyone would agree that the fundamental truism of morality is that 'we are supposed to be good'.
Morality relates to how we treat each other and how we treat each other. So I think it's very true that our purpose is to live in a harmonious way. You talk of being on the same frenquency. Maybe living in tune with the flow of things is what it means for all to get to the same frequency. That seems plausible, because if everyone is content with just moving a long with the causal chains of things, it would seem like we firstly are living harmoniously and secondly, indeed are on the same frequency.
But you place a lot on emphasis on the social aspects of being on the same frequency. Arguably, from a biological point of view, it is very beneficial for people to understand each other. It would fluent communication enriches cooperation which is a good thing. So if we are supposed to be good, then we are supposed to communicate better, i.e. get to the same frequency.
Fully connecting with people is an incredibly hard challenge. In some circumstances it is easier, of course, but for me, as a general rule of thumb, I have to admit that I don't really understand people. This is not because I am not trying, the reason is that people are extremely complicated. Everything in this world is complicated; I don't even have a full understanding of who I am myself. So the way I look at it, any means that make it easier for us to connect with each other, are quite good things. Realizing that we aren't distinct individuals, but rather are parts bumbing into each other in this absurdly confusing universe, then maybe we have a greater chance of reaching an enlightened kind of understanding.
If I had to guess which of Jesus' teachings he considered to be most important, it would probably be: "love thy neighbor as thyself." That would be to say that loving both your neighbor and yourself is very important. Anyone who is happy with themselves, tends to be a better person, overall. Just a simple leap over to a more positive outlook could change the world. But like you said, people are very complicated. Much more so than we need to be, and I think that complication is a result of our own doing. I think materialism, our egos, and lack of patience have a lot to do with that.
The experience of an imperfect life is probably very important, and maybe we need to try and bring heaven to earth, rather than waiting to see if there is a life better than this one. I think that the idea of heaven may be so appealing, because we are actually equating our current lives with hell.
But like you said, people are very complicated. Much more so than we need to be, and I think that complication is a result of our own doing. I think materialism, our egos, and lack of patience have a lot to do with that.
I haven't ever given much thought as to why this is so actually. I think you are pretty much spot on actually. We very easily get entangled in complicated situations, because we try to get something more than what we already have. We get attached to certain goals, and we do whatever we can to realize them. But often it's not as simple as we would like, our achievements often don't align with what we wanted, so we try harder, getting ever more entangled into situations that get gradually more hopeless. Materialism is a big factor here. Sometimes I make the mistake of thinking that 'if I only I had this' or more generally 'if only I were in a situation like that'. I make the mistake of thinking that something out there will satisfy some final desire.
It's fun to ponder what I would do if I finally did have everything I ever wanted. Would I simply lie down and die? What exactly would I be doing if everything was aligned with how I had hoped for?
So to use your terminology, what exactly would I be doing if I were in heaven right now? Why not just do that instead of chasing heaven? I think you are quite right again. In many ways this life is equated with hell. This equation is true given the fact that life is pretty hard, full of suffering and never any lasting blissful moments. The experience of an imperfect life is truly important. We have to really acknowledge that life isn't perfect, so that we may have a more realistic expectation of what life tends to entail.
Materialism is a big factor here. Sometimes I make the mistake of thinking that 'if I only I had this' or more generally 'if only I were in a situation like that'. I make the mistake of thinking that something out there will satisfy some final desire.
I think the only possession that will lead to ultimate happiness, is our own satisfaction with life. We need to learn how to enjoy the simple things in life. Jace and I have been discussing Native American spirituality and their connection with nature, and things like that. I really enjoy that point of view, and to an extent, I wish to apply it to my own life. I don't have much of a desire to live in a teepee and run around half-naked, but I am the type of person who would rather own a lot of land instead of a large house. I would actually be happy if cars did not exist. I long for that sort of simple, harmonious and balanced lifestyle... But I feel like the world is just so chaotic. We have taken a path more prone to stress. We need everything done fast... Which takes some of the joy and magic out of life, in my opinion.
The growth of atheism has led to an increased demand for solid evidence regarding God, the afterlife, the meaning of life, etc. We're losing the ability to think for ourselves. There was a time when philosophers were very important, prominent figures in society. A time when just simply engaging in deep-thought and introducing new ideas was looked up upon. I wish we were as interested in those sort of activities now, as we were hundreds of years ago.
So to use your terminology, what exactly would I be doing if I were in heaven right now?
The British philosopher Alan Watts argued, "to always be you would be an insufferable bore, so it is arranged that eventually you stop being you, and come back as someone different altogether."
That is clearly an argument for reincarnation, but I don't think it is an implausible idea. I think it is very possible that may be the case. Often people who experience NDEs claim that they discovered that reincarnation does exist, and that we can choose whether we want to reincarnate or not. As perfect beings, an experience of imperfection is a learning experience for us. I've never experienced an NDE, so all I can really say is, "hmm... Interesting," but there have been hundreds, if not thousands... Maybe even millions, of stories like that. How many people does it take for everyone to finally agree they saw something?
Why not just do that instead of chasing heaven? I think you are quite right again. In many ways this life is equated with hell.
And I think it would take some work, but if we could all unify in some way, we could turn it into heaven.
The experience of an imperfect life is truly important. We have to really acknowledge that life isn't perfect, so that we may have a more realistic expectation of what life tends to entail.
Yes, and I don't think there is an issue with people believing in an afterlife, either... As long as they don't feel the need to have to force their views on people in an effort to "save" them. Anyone who just simply believes in an afterlife, is probably more likely to live in the moment, where as non-believers, and theists who cling to an idea (which is pretty much the opposite of faith, by the way), may look back with regret, or forward with anxiety. That is not to say that people should believe in an afterlife simply because it is beneficial in some ways, though. Just that the view is not harmful, as some people seem to believe any belief associated with the supernatural is. And I realize this would not convince a lot of people, but maybe that comforting feeling has some meaning... Kind of like knowing that you have a nice home waiting for you once your trip is over.
I don't have much of a desire to live in a teepee and run around half-naked, but I am the type of person who would rather own a lot of land instead of a large house.
One major hindrance, though, is that even in this day and age, living like that is seen as somehow savage. It is looked down upon as if it's 'not good enough.' It's a complicated issue that in the end, living like that implicitly challenges things like capitalism and the legitimacy of governments. What if everyone were to live like that?
And yeah, I guess the reason why people are so anxious about people who have beliefs about the supernatural is because there is similarity between these people and religious people throughout the ages. People have killed each other over deities that they don't know exists, so naturally, people tense up when some person cares a lot about something that is above the natural order of our world.
One major hindrance, though, is that even in this day and age, living like that is seen as somehow savage. It is looked down upon as if it's 'not good enough.'
Do you mean the early Native American lifestyle, or living in a simple house with a lot of land?
Most people are so used to their materialistic view of things, that in their opinion, a simple life sounds terrible. Our society is kind of designed in a way so that a simple life is difficult to attain, though. Isn't that ironic?
I think anyone would agree that the fundamental truism of morality is that 'we are supposed to be good'.
Of course, most people disagree on what being "good" actually entails.
Morality relates to how we treat each other [...]. So I think it's very true that our purpose is to live in a harmonious way.
Why, exactly? I do not see how the former leads to the latter.
Fully connecting with people is an incredibly hard challenge. [...] people are extremely complicated. So the way I look at it, any means that make it easier for us to connect with each other, are quite good things.
I agree, but would apply that rationale to challenge most everything preceding this point in your post and the OP observations. However pleasant ideas such as "harmony" and "flow" and "frequency" may sound and feel, these are not really practicable possibilities. Our genetic dispositions for understanding the world are distinct, and this is compounded by our innately subjective experiences of the world around us; we each experience the world differently, and consequentially we understand and interact with it differently. We cannot be on the same frequency; and what does it mean to say our "purpose" in life is to chase something that cannot happen?
Realizing that we aren't distinct individuals, but rather are parts bumbing into each other in this absurdly confusing universe, then maybe we have a greater chance of reaching an enlightened kind of understanding.
By stating that we are not distinct individuals, do you mean to observe simply that we interrelate and affect one another... or are you referring to the more cosmic shared conscience/being that OP seemed to be discussing?
What do you mean by "enlightened kind of understanding"? Does this refer to the "same frequency" ideas earlier?
Why, exactly? I do not see how the former leads to the latter.
I guess it's fair to say that morality asks of us to treat each other in a mutually beneficial, and for the most part, a compassionate way. As I intend to use the term, to live in a harmonious way is to live in such a way that oneself and the people around one thrives through what one is contributing. It also means not gently avoiding problems when problems can be avoided. Obviously, living harmonoiusly does not imply causing big problems by avoiding smaller ones. You may call it an advanced kind of hedonism, something very Epicurian, if you like. It may be a discussion of semantics, but I don't equate happiness with pleasure. Pleasure plays a necessary part in stabilizing the former, but it's not sufficient. Anyway, I think living harmoniously is living in such a way that happiness is maximized. This does entail living in a much more down to earth sort of way.
We cannot be on the same frequency; and what does it mean to say our "purpose" in life is to chase something that cannot happen?
I think this is actually a very crucial point you highlight. I don't think it's a good idea to chase such spiritual perfect ideas as 'being on the same frequency'. As I have mentioned in a multiple of posts now, I don't think chasing, clinging and so on is useful way to reach happiness. Now I am talking like reaching happiness is the purpose of life. I don't mind if it is, all I care about is that life is nicer if I am happy. So anyway, what you mention is very crucial. We shouldn't chase these things 'harmony'. If we are chasing 'harmony' we are already living less harmoniously. So we shouldn't strive. I do believe though, that if we are given an option of living more in tune with the flow of things, we should do it. That's why I guess it's good to be mindful of these things. We should strive to make them happen, but rather, when given the oppourtinity we should act accordingly. These are alike, but there are crucial differences.
Does this refer to the "same frequency" ideas earlier?
In part. It also refers to getting to know what other people believe, so that my own understanding can be broadened.
or are you referring to the more cosmic shared conscience/being that OP seemed to be discussing?
I like these sort of philosophical speculations, and while my metaphysics take the starting point that consciousness is ontologically primary, I don't mean to posit that I know this for a fact. I do however wish to point towards some (perceived) aspects of reality, which seem to imply a kind of oneness of the world. For instance, the impermanence and lack of personal identity of everything implies that nothing is distinct. This could be a starting point for arguing for some kind of shared conscience.
I guess it's fair to say that morality asks of us to treat each other in a mutually beneficial, and for the most part, a compassionate way.
Does it though? Moralities certainly can function in that respect, but they have also been consistently used to justify and enact some of the least harmonious, most atrocious acts throughout human history. Morality is a mechanism for instituting and perpetuating a collective norm for behavior across a group of people, but there is no guarantee that this will be functional either within our without each moral group.
You may call it an advanced kind of hedonism, something very Epicurian, if you like. It may be a discussion of semantics, but I don't equate happiness with pleasure. Pleasure plays a necessary part in stabilizing the former, but it's not sufficient.
I appreciate hedonism through many of the same qualifications you have made.
Anyway, I think living harmoniously is living in such a way that happiness is maximized. This does entail living in a much more down to earth sort of way.
The trouble is that moralities are rarely “down to earth” in practice, let alone in pure ideology.
If we are chasing 'harmony' we are already living less harmoniously. So we shouldn't strive. […] I do believe though, that if we are given an option of living more in tune with the flow of things, we should do it.
I value the distinction you make here between pursuing and engaging harmony, but I do think my larger point was rather lost. What I was attempting to get at is that our capacity for interpersonal harmony is inherently limited by our distinct perspectives, making any ideal of harmony (weather pursued or engaged) impractical in my perspective.
Now I am talking like reaching happiness is the purpose of life. I don't mind if it is, all I care about is that life is nicer if I am happy.
I can appreciate the hedonistic influence here, but question whether that interest/feeling is an adequate basis from which to claim genuine purpose.
I do however wish to point towards some (perceived) aspects of reality, which seem to imply a kind of oneness of the world. For instance, the impermanence and lack of personal identity of everything implies that nothing is distinct. This could be a starting point for arguing for some kind of shared conscience.
I fail to see what credence impermanence lends to the notion of shared conscience. As for the “lack of personal identity of everything” I fail to see that that is a (probable) reality at all.
What our purpose should be is to try and live in harmony with each other and nature.
Why?
I would love it if one day we landed on an alien planet and found that it's inhabitants did everything right.
Do you believe this is actually even remotely probable? People do stupid, arguably fucked up things quite frequently but we do them because this is how we evolved to be: not perfect, but good enough. There is no reason to suspect that another species would exist and/or develop independent of evolution, and not be subject to the same pressure towards imperfect adequacy.
I do not think it is lights out after death. That is just too difficult of a concept to grasp, in my opinion.
Since when is conceptual difficulty a legitimate invalidation of a possibility?
Much like certain memory chips can contain more information than others, the same goes for our brains.
Much like certain memory chips, brains cannot hold information if they do not exist. Before we are born the physical brain that generates our conception of self does no exist, and without that the self-conception does not exist either.
I think that God may in fact be just as curious as to why he (although, I doubt God has a gender) exists, as much as us... And that may in fact be our purpose.
Any particular reason you believe this... or do you just believe it?
I do not know if he is right, but it is a fascinating idea. One that actually makes sense if you think about it long enough.
Interesting, perhaps. Sensible, not especially (to me at least).
Because depleting our resources and going to war with each other is not doing us much good.
Do you believe this is actually even remotely probable?
That there may be an alien planet where they have taken a better path than us? Yes.
People do stupid, arguably fucked up things quite frequently but we do them because this is how we evolved to be: not perfect, but good enough.
You can refrain from any negative actions.
There is no reason to suspect that another species would exist and/or develop independent of evolution, and not be subject to the same pressure towards imperfect adequacy.
Sure there is. If you look at several Native American tribes, they lived in harmony with each other and nature. Sure, they hunted animals for food and killed those they considered a threat and they certainly weren't as advanced as we are now, but a lot of the technology we currently have I find unnecessary for living a good life... And I do not see why even with certain technologies, we couldn't be more environmental-friendly and unified.
Since when is conceptual difficulty a legitimate invalidation of a possibility?
I never said it was. I was just stating what I believe. Is that really something you feel the need to address?
Much like certain memory chips, brains cannot hold information if they do not exist. Before we are born the physical brain that generates our conception of self does no exist, and without that the self-conception does not exist either.
So, how does that refute what I said?
Any particular reason you believe this... or do you just believe it?
It's just an idea. Not something I necessarily believe... I just think that it may be the case, as I also think some other things may be the case.
Because depleting our resources and going to war with each other is not doing us much good.
The evolutionary bias across species is towards disharmony, rather than your harmonic conception. Resource depletion and conflict are not purely dysfunctional in an evolutionary sense, as they exercise considerable influence upon human population and development. Do you have any basis for claiming that harmony is actually more functional, beyond a personal emotional utopic bias towards it?
That there may be an alien planet where they have taken a better path than us? Yes.
This presumes there is even an accurate point of reference between two species and cultures wholly alien to one another upon which to pass a subjective value judgement of "better".
You can refrain from any negative actions.
Can we? I would contend that our actions are not a matter of actual free will, but are predicated by our biological predispositions and environmental conditioning. If it were truly as simple as choosing not to do stupid things, we would have done so long ago.
Sure there is. If you look at several Native American tribes, they lived in harmony with each other and nature. [...] And I do not see why even with certain technologies, we couldn't be more environmental-friendly and unified.
Several Native American tribes... such as which, precisely? You are far too readily disposed to preference an idealized stereotype of Native American culture, while in the same breadth calling them less "advanced". The reality is that Native American societies has their own problems, just as any and every other society ever has had. Unless you can point to a specific, actual harmonious utopia my point stands.
I never said it was. I was just stating what I believe. Is that really something you feel the need to address?
Perhaps I missed something, but it appeared your sole rationale for disbelieving that life ends with death is that that is too difficult to believe. If you cannot accept that, then that is fine on a personal level; I just generally question the debate merit of any belief made upon a premise like that.
So, how does that refute what I said?
Your argument was that just because you cannot remember before you were born this does not mean you did not exist before you were born. My argument was that your analogy and rationale about memory development during our physical lifespan cannot actually extend to before or after the same. Our sense of self is a consequence of the physical existence of the brain; our self cannot exist prior to and ceases to exist after the existence of the brain. How does that not refute your argument?
It's just an idea. Not something I necessarily believe... I just think that it may be the case, as I also think some other things may be the case.
Resource depletion and conflict are not purely dysfunctional in an evolutionary sense, as they exercise considerable influence upon human population and development.
It depends on what sort of development you think is necessary. We could avoid resource depletion and conflict, do you disagree?
This presumes there is even an accurate point of reference between two species and cultures wholly alien to one another upon which to pass a subjective value judgement of "better".
I would imagine that a lifestyle that benefits both the planet and it's inhabitants would be seen as good no matter where in the universe it may be, and in comparison to our own world, it may be seen as "better" from our perspective. We don't have another planet to go to, so caring for the well-being of our environment and the life on it should be our top-priority.
Can we? I would contend that our actions are not a matter of actual free will, but are predicated by our biological predispositions and environmental conditioning.
Give me an example of someone who can not refrain from a negative action.
If it were truly as simple as choosing not to do stupid things, we would have done so long ago.
Maybe choosing to do stupid things caught on. War is obviously stupid, but in many cases people find it necessary. Fracking is stupid, but those in charge prefer the resources and the money... And so on and so forth. The stupid decisions we make have their benefits in the minds of many, but we will reach a point where we realize what we thought of as benefits led to irreversible negative consequences.
"When all the trees have been cut down,
when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted,
when all the air is unsafe to breathe,
only then will you discover you cannot eat money."
- Cree Prophecy
Several Native American tribes... such as which, precisely? You are far too readily disposed to preference an idealized stereotype of Native American culture, while in the same breadth calling them less "advanced".
What makes you think the stereotype is not true? There were instances of Native Americans being violent, but in most cases that was instigated by foreigners.
The reality is that Native American societies has their own problems, just as any and every other society ever has had. Unless you can point to a specific, actual harmonious utopia my point stands.
Yeah... Their problems were typically outsiders trying to take the land they lived on. What other problems are you referring to?
Perhaps I missed something, but it appeared your sole rationale for disbelieving that life ends with death is that that is too difficult to believe.
Not my sole reason... I just find the concept difficult to imagine.
How does that not refute your argument?
Because that doesn't refute my argument, but supports it. That obviously was not your intent, though. My point was that it would be impossible to remember a life prior to the one we are currently living, if we did exist prior to our birth. You stating that as an infant we haven't yet developed a sense of self, does not render my argument false... Because my purpose for bringing up the infant/memory argument was to refute those who claim that we should be able to remember. Basically, you took my side and introduced an aspect that I did not include.
It depends on what sort of development you think is necessary.
What is necessary for survival and what is necessarily determined for our evolutionary trajectory are by no means identical. It is entirely possible that our evolutionary trajectory will fall short of meeting what is necessary for our continued (or preferential) existence. This has been true for other species, and it is rather egotistical to presume we are exempt from that possibility.
We could avoid resource depletion and conflict, do you disagree?
Given our long historic tract record, I find this improbable at best.
I would imagine that a lifestyle that benefits both the planet and it's inhabitants would be seen as good no matter where in the universe it may be, and in comparison to our own world, it may be seen as "better" from our perspective.
What constitutes a "benefit" for those inhabitants (and potentially even for their planet) may be entirely different than it is for us.
We don't have another planet to go to, so caring for the well-being of our environment and the life on it should be our top-priority.
I do not disagree that this should be a priority, but that it is our purpose.
Give me an example of someone who can not refrain from a negative action.
Anyone who ever takes one? I consider every action we take ultimately involuntary, and free will an illusion ungrounded in objective reality.
Maybe choosing to do stupid things caught on. [...] The stupid decisions we make have their benefits in the minds of many, but we will reach a point where we realize what we thought of as benefits led to irreversible negative consequences.
You claim this upon what basis, exactly? Doing stupid things did not "catch on"; it is as fundamental to being human as is intelligence. We have known for centuries, and for thousands of years in some instances, that certain things are not logical nor apparently preferential for our well-being or survival yet this knowledge has not noticeably shifted our action.
What makes you think the stereotype is not true? There were instances of Native Americans being violent, but in most cases that was instigated by foreigners.
Stereotypes rarely are, particularly when they grossly oversimplify and reduce a people to near absolutes. I will not believe your assumptions until you actually proffer some evidence that what you are claiming has a basis in truth rather than hearsay and supposition.
Yeah... Their problems were typically outsiders trying to take the land they lived on. What other problems are you referring to?
Again, you claim this based upon what evidence?
Likely the same "problems" that have existed in most every society (e.g. power rivalries, greed, jealousy, sexism, abuse, neglect, etc.). Until you provide some sort of evidence to prove that Native Americans are immune to the "negative" attributes and problems that have evidenced in every other human population I think it is quite safe to conclude they were not an exception to human nature.
Not my sole reason... I just find the concept difficult to imagine.
Then what other reason do you have to disbelieve in the absence of life after death?
Because that doesn't refute my argument, but supports it. [...] You stating that as an infant we haven't yet developed a sense of self, does not render my argument false[...]. Basically, you took my side and introduced an aspect that I did not include.
You have completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I said. I very explicitly said that before the physical brain exists the self cannot exist, because the self is a byproduct of the physical human brain. This means before birth and after death when there is no physical brain in existence, not in infancy or old age.
Given our long historic tract record, I find this improbable at best.
You seem to be a pessimist.
Just because we have made bad decisions doesn't mean we can't stop.
What constitutes a "benefit" for those inhabitants (and potentially even for their planet) may be entirely different than it is for us.
No violence against one another, living happily and living healthy. How can the benefits of that not be universal?
I do not disagree that this should be a priority, but that it is our purpose.
Well, you don't believe that we have a purpose, so I'm basically just aiming for priority with you lol.
Anyone who ever takes one? I consider every action we take ultimately involuntary, and free will an illusion ungrounded in objective reality.
So, you aren't choosing to debate with me?
You claim this upon what basis, exactly?
This is why you should probably avoid debating with me. I use words like think and maybe and in my opinion, for a reason. I do not want people to think that I am claiming something to be true. I like to introduce different ideas. It is all just food for thought... And if you do not like that food, it is as simple as not eating it... Not explaining to me why you do not like it, or questioning me as to why I served it.
Doing stupid things did not "catch on"; it is as fundamental to being human as is intelligence. We have known for centuries, and for thousands of years in some instances, that certain things are not logical nor apparently preferential for our well-being or survival yet this knowledge has not noticeably shifted our action.
Like what? There has been some sort of motive for just about every action we have taken. Give me an example of something we have done that did not have some sort of desired outcome.
I will not believe your assumptions until you actually proffer some evidence that what you are claiming has a basis in truth rather than hearsay and supposition.
A Native American runner said this: "I run as a way of being closer to the earth and gaining harmony with the land, this is the spiritual foundation of my culture. When I am up in the sacred places, I just don't want to come down."
"An important part of daily life among many traditional American Indian people was-and for many still is-the maintenance of harmony and balance. Living a good life, one free from sickness and conflict, requires that one strive to maintain social and spiritual harmony and balance. In traditional Native American cultures, harmony and balance exist on four different levels: internal, social, natural, and spiritual."
"For the Algonquin of Pikwakanagan, as well as the Algonquin People in Quebec, beliefs are based on the importance of respect. They believe that “every animal, every plant, every stone, etc. is part of the circle of life. Everything has its purpose and deserves respect just as much as anything else. For that reason, only the necessary resources were harvested and offerings were made as a thank you (with tobacco).” They also rotated parts of the forest they hunted in each year so that life could regenerate."
"We too can honor the earth by taking only what we need as opposed to what we want, by eating more fresh, natural foods according to the seasons, and by giving back to each other and to the land. By doing these things, we reduce the waste of natural resources, as well as money. We need to learn that saving the environment is not in opposition to a stable economy. They actually go hand in hand."
"Native American life also was characterized by love of nature, and today’s concern about conservation and environmentalism are inspired by views which were and still are the hallmarks of Native American life."
"Animals were respected as equal in rights to humans. Of course they were hunted, but only for food, and the hunter first asked permission of the animal's spirit. Among the hunter-gatherers the land was owned in common: there was no concept of private property in land, and the idea that it could be bought and sold was repugnant. Many Indians had an appreciation of nature's beauty as intense as any Romantic poet."
"The Indians viewed the white man's attitude to nature as the polar opposite of the Indian. The white man seemed hell-bent on destroying not just the Indians, but the whole natural order, felling forests, clearing land, killing animals for sport."
Not every Native American was as nature-friendly as the others... But we can still learn a lot from the ones who were.
Again, you claim this based upon what evidence?
I take a lot of interest in Native American history and culture. Mainly because I have Native American heritage myself... So, I like to learn about my ancestors. I gave you some links and quotes to look at, though.
Likely the same "problems" that have existed in most every society (e.g. power rivalries, greed, jealousy, sexism, abuse, neglect, etc.).
There were wars amongst certain tribes. A harsher environment sometimes resulted in more violent tribes, because they were more focused on surviving, and their personal beliefs were not as harmony-oriented as some of the others. Power wasn't important within most tribes, though. Greed I would say was definitely uncommon. Most Native Americans were opposed to materialism. Sexism... I'm not so sure. One of the links I provided touched on Native American views regarding sexuality, and it said that they weren't concerned with sexual preference. As for their views towards women, here is an article on the role of Native American women: http://www.indians.org/articles/native-american-women.html
Until you provide some sort of evidence to prove that Native Americans are immune to the "negative" attributes and problems that have evidenced in every other human population I think it is quite safe to conclude they were not an exception to human nature.
Immune? They are still human... But in many cases, they could avoid giving into many of the negative desires of the "white-man."
I very explicitly said that before the physical brain exists the self cannot exist, because the self is a byproduct of the physical human brain. This means before birth and after death when there is no physical brain in existence, not in infancy or old age.
I didn't misunderstand anything. Apparently you have forgotten my argument that our sense of self is an illusion.
You seem to be a pessimist. Just because we have made bad decisions doesn't mean we can't stop.
I never said it was impossible, merely improbable in light of thousands of years of history that establishes a rather clear trend against its likelihood.
No violence against one another, living happily and living healthy. How can the benefits of that not be universal?
What constitutes violence? What makes a species happy? What is healthy for a species? There is no guarantee their neural or physical development is remotely similar.
I suspect this point is not actually altogether that important; agree to disagree?
Well, you don't believe that we have a purpose, so I'm basically just aiming for priority with you lol.
Fair, and truly your best tract with me. This was never really in dispute though, I think.
So, you aren't choosing to debate with me?
Correct.
This is why you should probably avoid debating with me. [...] Not explaining to me why you do not like it, or questioning me as to why I served it.
This is why I was posting as a clarification rather than a dispute. I appreciate that you present different ideas, particularly as I do not see many others on this site sharing anything challenging. I am pushing you for evidence and rationale primarily because I am interested in knowing if you have it so that I can further familiarize myself with the ideas. If you do not then that is entirely fine. Is it safe to presume going forward that you use terms like think, maybe, and in my opinion to consistently mean they are things you believe without necessarily claiming that they are true or proven/provable? If so then I will do my best to remember that with you (most others are not so intentional in their language).
Regarding Native American environmentalism
I am admittedly not the most well versed in Native American history or culture, and appreciate your sharing this information with me. These were all interesting reads, though I found the more compelling accounts to be those which included more nuance and specific historic examples (esp. the final two links). I think what these articles show, and what you actually seem to acknowledge as we get further into the issue, is that there were imperfections, contradictions, and inconsistencies between the spiritual ideal and what was actually realized.
To me, it makes about as much sense to idealize the whole of Native American culture for its conservationists as it does to do so for European culture on account of its conservationists or pre-urbaninzed historical populations. It would be just as easy to villainize the entire Native American population on account of its warring and/or less eco-conscientious groups, as was done with Europeans in this context I think. Certainly we could learn from some of what Native American peoples thought or practiced, but this can be said of most populations throughout history. Equally, we can observe that human societies are also riddled with imperfections and contradictions.
There were wars amongst certain tribes. A harsher environment sometimes resulted in more violent tribes, because they were more focused on surviving, and their personal beliefs were not as harmony-oriented as some of the others. Power wasn't important within most tribes, though. Greed I would say was definitely uncommon. Most Native Americans were opposed to materialism. Sexism... I'm not so sure. One of the links I provided touched on Native American views regarding sexuality, and it said that they weren't concerned with sexual preference. As for their views towards women, here is an article on the role of Native American women:
I doubt that power was unimportant, even if it was not prioritized. Power dynamics pervade our interactions and while they are not innately problematic in my opinion, they are susceptible to abuse in any setting with any group of people.
The link that talks about sexuality conflates it with gender identity, actually. It is not actually speaking to sex and gender roles but to the acceptance of non-binary gender identities. This I am fairly well-versed in actuality, as a transgender person interested in different cultural and historic understandings of gender presentation and identity. While Native American societies were more accepting of multiple identities, the roles surrounding those identities tended to be rather strongly enforced socially (at least in the case of those cultures I have studied).
With respect to sexism itself, I think it is notable that while the article you reference talks about all of the work that women could do it does not mention political representation at all and only indirectly references social influence. My understanding is that most positions of tribal authority (e.g. chiefs, councils, etc.) tended to prioritize male identities over female ones.
Immune? They are still human... But in many cases, they could avoid many of the negative desires of the "white-man."
What I think is dangerous with this generalization is that it creates an idealization of one group and villainization of another group on the basis of some pronounced examples, at the cost of nuance which more accurately captures individual and social realities.
I didn't misunderstand anything. Apparently you have forgotten my argument that our sense of self is an illusion.
You did because you observed that I was talking about the development of the infant brain, which I never was. Regarding your argument of self as illusion... my understanding is that you considered that a belief rather than a truth for which you have evidence or strong rationale? Please correct me if I am wrong and I will try to address that.
I never said it was impossible, merely improbable in light of thousands of years of history that establishes a rather clear trend against its likelihood.
It would be difficult since so many people are set in their ways.
What constitutes violence?
Physical force used to harm one another.
What makes a species happy?
As far as humans go, I think love makes people happy. Not just romantic love, but the feeling of being loved and appreciated. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone disliking love.
What is healthy for a species?
Well, that would obviously vary. But I like the Native American balance and harmony beliefs, which really deal with health: internal, social, natural, and spiritual. That is for humans, though. I can't really begin to compare extraterrestrials to anything but ourselves. Anything different seems a bit like an animal... Or a robot. They would have to have some sort of emotional reaction to things in order for them to even function similar to humans, and to actually live in a way that we would find better than our own.
I suspect this point is not actually altogether that important; agree to disagree?
Yeah, that's fine.
Correct.
Care to elaborate?
I am pushing you for evidence and rationale primarily because I am interested in knowing if you have it so that I can further familiarize myself with the ideas.
No, not really... Nothing that I think would convince you. What I believe, I try not to force on others. I like to put forth an idea and see if maybe they are interested, and if they are they may ponder on the idea themselves, then maybe add to it. Life is a strange mystery, so I don't really like making people feel bad for believing in something (unless it is dangerous). I do try and convince people to be more open-minded, though... And to realize that faith is not clinging to an idea.
I have gotten to the point where I would rather treat the debates on here more like conversations. More progress is made that way. People are usually more willing to ease up and talk about their beliefs in a reasonable manner when they do not feel threatened. For example, I can't help but feel like if I were to go into more depth with you regarding my beliefs, it would be pointless and somewhat unpleasant. It would feel more like a challenge, well... A dispute, as it is lol. So, really all we are trying to do is defend our position, and on a topic such as this, I see no reason to... Because it is much like trying to protect a castle we can't even find from attackers who are just as lost.
If you do not then that is entirely fine. Is it safe to presume going forward that you use terms like think, maybe, and in my opinion to consistently mean they are things you believe without necessarily claiming that they are true or proven/provable?
In some cases they are not even what I believe. I just think they are possible. I'm a believer that the answers are right in front of us, we're just overlooking them. Sometimes I feel like I've put together a piece of the puzzle, but I don't actually know. As of right now, I'm just looking at the pieces scattered across the table, guessing what the image may be.
I think what these articles show, and what you actually seem to acknowledge as we get further into the issue, is that there were imperfections, contradictions, and inconsistencies between the spiritual ideal and what was actually realized.
Not always. It really depended on certain exterior factors, and in a lot of cases, the more spiritual the tribe, the more harmonious their lifestyle. In areas where the environment was harsher, spirituality was lower... Thus, harmonious feelings towards nature were not as strong. In those cases, the focus was on survival, and sometimes that meant going to war with other tribes, or attacking settlers.
For the tribes that did live in greater accordance to their spiritual views, their harmonious lifestyles were interrupted. With the European settlers came diseases, and then with the United States they were driven from the land that they were used to, and were so spiritually attached to... And relocated to sites that didn't really compare. Many of them died on the journey to the sites ("Trail of Tears"). Could you imagine? Some foreigner claiming occupied land, forcing you to move from the land you grew to love, so that they could build on it, and use it's resources. That's like someone kicking you out of your favorite car, claiming it as their own, and then tearing it apart, so that it could be the way they want it.
To me, it makes about as much sense to idealize the whole of Native American culture for its conservationists as it does to do so for European culture on account of its conservationists or pre-urbaninzed historical populations.
I don't think there is much of a comparison. They had different mentalities.
It would be just as easy to villainize the entire Native American population on account of its warring and/or less eco-conscientious groups, as was done with Europeans in this context I think.
I don't think the number of warring Native American tribes exceeded that of the peaceful ones.
Europeans in this context vary greatly. If you could pinpoint a certain group or possibly even a time period for the Europeans, that may help give me a better idea.
Certainly we could learn from some of what Native American peoples thought or practiced, but this can be said of most populations throughout history. Equally, we can observe that human societies are also riddled with imperfections and contradictions.
We could definitely learn from all cultures. I just think that certain ones did a better job than others.
I doubt that power was unimportant, even if it was not prioritized.
The chief was looked at as a servant, as any leader should be. Their system was often more along the lines of egalitarianism. I know that with at least one tribe, a chief would be elected (probably an elder) and if he was not a good servant of his people, he would be replaced.
While Native American societies were more accepting of multiple identities, the roles surrounding those identities tended to be rather strongly enforced socially (at least in the case of those cultures I have studied).
Which cultures?
With respect to sexism itself, I think it is notable that while the article you reference talks about all of the work that women could do it does not mention political representation at all and only indirectly references social influence. My understanding is that most positions of tribal authority (e.g. chiefs, councils, etc.) tended to prioritize male identities over female ones.
Those were all female Native American chiefs. There are plenty of modern ones as well. Also, keep in mind that the chiefs who were elected were often thought of as wise, strong, hunters and warriors.
What I think is dangerous with this generalization is that it creates an idealization of one group and villainization of another group on the basis of some pronounced examples, at the cost of nuance which more accurately captures individual and social realities.
The way in which Native Americans were treated, does cast the "white-man" in a negative light. I realize it was mainly the American and European governments that were responsible for the wrong-doings, though.
You did because you observed that I was talking about the development of the infant brain, which I never was.
No, I was. You were referring to the brain in general, right?
Regarding your argument of self as illusion... my understanding is that you considered that a belief rather than a truth for which you have evidence or strong rationale?
On this subject, I do not consider anything a truth... Yet.
It would be difficult since so many people are set in their ways.
More than difficult; highly improbable. With a history of such conduct as impervious to change as ours has been, such attributes seem fairly innate to the human condition.
Physical force used [...] better than our own.
We are dropping this, yes?
Care to elaborate?
I am not choosing to have this debate with you. That I am doing so is a consequence of the confluence of my biological predispositions and environmental conditioning over the course of my life. The sensory perception of choice is a delusion disconnected from objective reality.
No, not really... Nothing that I think would convince you. What I believe, I try not to force on others. [...] I have gotten to the point where I would rather treat the debates on here more like conversations. More progress is made that way. People are usually more willing to ease up and talk about their beliefs in a reasonable manner when they do not feel threatened. For example, I can't help but feel like if I were to go into more depth with you regarding my beliefs, it would be pointless and somewhat unpleasant.
I understand, and I can appreciate the merits of conversation relative to debate. Being on a debate forum I did rather into this exchange (and those preceding it) anticipating a debate, rather than a conversation. I am fine with either, but it helps to know which I am in. In general, is it safe to presume you are pursuing conversation if you are using "clarify" for posting, and debate if you are using "dispute"?
If I may ask, as well, whether your sense of unpleasantness in a prospective debate with me has to do with debate in general or my approach towards it?
In some cases they are not even what I believe. I just think they are possible. I'm a believer that the answers are right in front of us, we're just overlooking them. Sometimes I feel like I've put together a piece of the puzzle, but I don't actually know. As of right now, I'm just looking at the pieces scattered across the table, guessing what the image may be.
Alright. I will try to bear that in mind; I do sometimes struggle to read intent into statements accurately (which I why I was asking about the consistency of your use of those phrases).
Not always. It really depended on certain exterior factors, and in a lot of cases, the more spiritual the tribe, the more harmonious their lifestyle. In areas where the environment was harsher, spirituality was lower... Thus, harmonious feelings towards nature were not as strong. In those cases, the focus was on survival, and sometimes that meant going to war with other tribes, or attacking settlers.
In other words, the capacity for harmony was a situational privilege?
For the tribes that did live in greater accordance to their spiritual views, their harmonious lifestyles were interrupted. [...]
I do recognize this, and it was not my intent to negate that experience in any way. The destruction, intentional and incidental, that accompanied European settlers was terrible for Native American persons and society.
My point was that using to general a brush to paint all of European society throughout its entire history in the context of its settlement history is hazardous. With the issues and histories I have researched more thoroughly, the more simplistic representations of the involved parties have always been the most inaccurate.
I don't think there is much of a comparison. They had different mentalities. & I don't think the number of warring Native American tribes exceeded that of the peaceful ones. & Europeans in this context vary greatly. If you could pinpoint a certain group or possibly even a time period for the Europeans, that may help give me a better idea.
I recognize the differences between the two. My point was that defining an entire (trans)continental population on the basis of some of its members is inaccurate at best. Whether that group is in the minority or the majority is not terribly important to me, because either way a portion of a population is being erased and ignored (whether that is a more functional or dysfunctional aspect).
We could definitely learn from all cultures. I just think that certain ones did a better job than others.
Certain ones may have done a "better" job than others in certain areas but that does not necessarily translate unilaterally across everything they did.
Furthermore, I think it is important to note the contexts in which different cultures exist. The more harmonious Native American cultures you discuss developed within very specific contexts, and were not even consistently practical within exclusively Native American populations. The harmonious approach was preferential in some contexts, but as you have noted a less harmonious approach was necessary in situations where resources were more limited and environments more harsh. What worked within the harmonious societies would not necessarily translate out of those communities, and arguably where they are impractical could do more harm than good (e.g. a Native American tribe in a warring environment that attempted to adopt the harmonious approach would not survive).
The chief was looked at as a servant, as any leader should be. Their system was often more along the lines of egalitarianism. I know that with at least one tribe, a chief would be elected (probably an elder) and if he was not a good servant of his people, he would be replaced.
I simply lack the evidence, and I am not certain that others actually possess it, to reach a conclusion either way to whether power was consistently or predominantly wielded in accordance to this ideal. While there were likely tribes where this egalitarianism prevailed (much as other sub-populations of other large demographic groups had them), there were probably tribes where it did not. Again, the capacity for this would be situational.
Which cultures?
I studied this a while back so it is difficult to recall them all specifically, but the Lakota winkte and Navajo lhamana (e.g. We'wha) come to mind. Non-binary identities were acknowledged and, as I understand, were usually valued and esteemed. Once identified as two-spirit certain roles and behavior were commonly expected though, particularly in terms of mediation or leadership. What I still find problematic is that one's identity as winkte, llhamana, etc. was determined based upon presentation behaviors such as interest in activities gendered as typically feminine or masculine and then contained within expected corresponding behaviors or roles. Even within this more accepting environment, I would have had to struggle to assert my personal identity as a biologically female, male gender identifying, multi-gender presenting person (please let me know if that is unclear in some way). The point of this all being that even a relatively harmonious society can still possess power structures that restrict, oppress, and erase identity (which is a form of violence in my opinion).
Queen Alliquippa [...] Those were all female Native American chiefs. There are plenty of modern ones as well. Also, keep in mind that the chiefs who were elected were often thought of as wise, strong, hunters and warriors.
I was not aware of this; thank you for taking the time to inform me. I mean that sincerely.
The way in which Native Americans were treated, does cast the "white-man" in a negative light. I realize it was mainly the American and European governments that were responsible for the wrong-doings, though.
Understandably so, but I think perhaps you understand what I am trying to say about being careful not to generalize to greatly for any population? I do not believe in idealizing or villainizing any group or individual, because of what I think doing that ignores. I want to be clear though that in trying to introduce that nuance I am in no way meaning to ignore the atrocities committed by some European settlers and governments against Native American persons and tribes.
No, I was. You were referring to the brain in general, right?
Yes, the physical brain as an organ.
On this subject, I do not consider anything a truth... Yet.
That was my impression, which I guess is why I did not count it as an argument against the non-existence of life after death.
More than difficult; highly improbable. With a history of such conduct as impervious to change as ours has been, such attributes seem fairly innate to the human condition.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I think it is within our capabilities to change. It would take a lot of time, but just like the spread of the world's religions, I think a more harmonious ideology could spread. I think many of the world's religions teach this at their core, but people have just misinterpreted them. The Bible especially teaches harmony, but most Christians have become more focused on literal interpretations of texts that should be interpreted allegorically. A literal interpretation is what I would call a dangerous belief.
We are dropping this, yes?
Sure.
I am not choosing to have this debate with you. That I am doing so is a consequence of the confluence of my biological predispositions and environmental conditioning over the course of my life. The sensory perception of choice is a delusion disconnected from objective reality.
You don't think it could be that certain factors have led you to certain options?
I am fine with either, but it helps to know which I am in. In general, is it safe to presume you are pursuing conversation if you are using "clarify" for posting, and debate if you are using "dispute"?
I tend to use clarify at the beginning of a debate, unless it is something that I totally disagree with... So, yeah, pretty much. The reason we are in dispute right now is because you clicked it. That's not a problem, though. It's just a thing. At first it set a somewhat hostile tone, as it usually does when we go from clarify to dispute, but I think the tone has changed.
If I may ask, as well, whether your sense of unpleasantness in a prospective debate with me has to do with debate in general or my approach towards it?
Honestly, your approach. It kind of has that tone as if you have a bat out ready to swing at my responses before you even get a chance to read them. That may not be the case, though. It just seemed that way.
In other words, the capacity for harmony was a situational privilege?
Well, I think it probably got less and less with each generation. All Native American Tribes have things in common, spiritually. Some lived more accordingly than others. Resources were scare in desert-like regions, such as New Mexico and Arizona and such, so they were more focused on survival, where as tribes further towards the East had plenty to eat, and had more access to water, and things like that.
Native American tribes probably shouldn't have lived in desert regions to begin with. However, the people who live in those regions now have access to things that early Native Americans did not. So, nowadays I don't see an excuse not to live harmoniously, or spiritually. In some cases, such as with Aldous Huxley, who held a similar spiritual perspective to mine, moved to a desert-region because he felt that it had a greater spiritual effect on him.
My point was that using to general a brush to paint all of European society throughout its entire history in the context of its settlement history is hazardous.
Certainly not all, but to name each person individually is a very difficult and time consuming task. Not even all of Europe was involved, but with countries such as England, France, and Spain, which are all European countries, simply calling them European is easier, and I would assume that for the most part, people would understand who I am referring to.
With the issues and histories I have researched more thoroughly, the more simplistic representations of the involved parties have always been the most inaccurate.
Such as?
My point was that defining an entire (trans)continental population on the basis of some of its members is inaccurate at best. Whether that group is in the minority or the majority is not terribly important to me, because either way a portion of a population is being erased and ignored (whether that is a more functional or dysfunctional aspect).
Same thing as with the Europeans. To name each Native American tribe would be more difficult and more time consuming than with the Europeans. I can only say "Native Americans" and hope that you understand that I am not referring to all of them. If you ask for specific examples, that I have no problem with, as can be seen by the examples I have already provided... But when I am speaking generally of all the tribes that lived more true to their spiritual beliefs, it is easier for me to just say "Native Americans."
The more harmonious Native American cultures you discuss developed within very specific contexts, and were not even consistently practical within exclusively Native American populations.
I think that way of life probably could have been avoided, maybe by simply moving out of the desert regions. For whatever reason, they probably became attached to those regions. However, I do not see an excuse nowadays, at least for the most part.
While there were likely tribes where this egalitarianism prevailed (much as other sub-populations of other large demographic groups had them), there were probably tribes where it did not.
Probably. There were thousands of Native American tribes.
I studied this a while back so it is difficult to recall them all specifically, but the Lakota winkte and Navajo lhamana (e.g. We'wha) come to mind.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.
Yes, I suspect so. I disagree with just about all of that, and think I have explained my rationale as to why already. No sense beating the metaphorical dead horse.
You don't think it could be that certain factors have led you to certain options?
I think it is possible, but not probable.
The reason we are in dispute right now is because you clicked it. That's not a problem, though. It's just a thing. At first it set a somewhat hostile tone, as it usually does when we go from clarify to dispute, but I think the tone has changed.
I had not even realized I switched…
Well, I think it probably got less and less with each generation. […] and had more access to water, and things like that.
So... yes? Harmony is a situational privilege, not an attribute innate to one group of people or another.
Native American tribes probably shouldn't have lived in desert regions to begin with. However, the people who live in those regions now have access to things that early Native Americans did not. […] & I think that way of life probably could have been avoided, maybe by simply moving out of the desert regions. […] However, I do not see an excuse nowadays, at least for the most part.
If it were a simple as moving, it probably would have been done; but how do you incorporate into an area already lived in by others without conflict arising in some fashion, and how do you give up what is traditionally familiar (particularly when it is the environment you learned how to live in effectively and you are not as well adapted/adjusted to other places), etc.
And, of course, those people today are subject to a whole different host of situational disadvantages (e.g. reservation histories, etc.) that make harmonious living less possible... yes?
Certainly not all, but to name each person individually is a very difficult and time consuming task. [...] people would understand who I am referring to. & To name each Native American tribe would be more difficult and more time consuming than with the Europeans. I can only say "Native Americans" and hope that you understand that I am not referring to all of them. & Yes, and if you have any idea on how to better pinpoint those certain groups, I'd be willing to listen... Or read lol.
I appreciate the simplicity of generalization, but felt that the way in which you were utilizing them (particularly earlier on) was an abuse of the limited scope of their actual utility. It is one thing to make a generalization, and another to extrapolate from it into absolute conclusions.
Such as?
Honestly, my history classes are all a few years in my past now and I do not have the greatest memory for the best examples... but to pull some simple ones off the top of my head: the U.S. war for independence, the American Civil War, the Hundred Years' War, contemporary firearms regulation, etc. I am not sure if that clarifies, but I imagine that most any issue or event you would choose to present I could indicate its complexities with a bit of digging.
Here is a Wiki link on Gender roles among some of the Native Americans & And here is some information on two-spirit
Thanks, though I did bother to read the wikis... I was looking rather a bit beyond that when I studied it. :P
Just took a look at those Nicola Tesla quotes. They are actually pretty interesting. Maybe you know Dennis McKenna (brother of Terence), he also has this idea that the brain is just a receiver. He makes the analogy of that fact gravitational force is a function of mass, by proposing that consciousness is a function of complexity. This aligns with the fact that the human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It also aligns with the perceived hierarchy of consciousness of less complicated beings.
Nikola Tesla might be implying that by being more conscious (whatever that means) we may penetrate deeper into the secrets of that core.
I have heard of Dennis McKenna, but I know more of Terrence McKenna's stuff. I'll have to take a look.
Nikola Tesla has been regarded as the greatest mind of all time. Even Einstein said that Tesla was the smartest man alive. This doesn't mean everything he claimed was correct, but I think that does give us reason not to reject any of his ideas, unless they can be totally falsified.
Nikola Tesla might be implying that by being more conscious (whatever that means) we may penetrate deeper into the secrets of that core.
Many of the world's religions and philosophers have been saying that for thousands of years. Buddhism calls it enlightenment or nirvana... Christianity calls it the Kingdom of God or the kingdom of Heaven.
Gold star for you. It is an impossible target, but it is not so ambiguous an abstract! All you have to do is live a life rejecting what is destructive and embracing what is good. It is pretty clearly explained. We should be smart enough to figure these things out, but mankind just makes the same mistakes over and over again. Can you explain that? I can.
Gold star for you. It is an impossible target, but it is not so ambiguous an abstract! All you have to do is live a life rejecting what is destructive and embracing what is good. It is pretty clearly explained.
The thing about abstractions is that they are inherently ambiguous. What does it mean to "reject what is destructive" and "embrace what is good" anyways? It is not at all explicit.
We should be smart enough to figure these things out, but mankind just makes the same mistakes over and over again. Can you explain that? I can.
I doubt that you can, actually. Particularly as you did not actually elaborate.
I think it most probable that we are imperfect because evolution does not select for the best attributes, but the better attributes.
If it is all the same to you, I would rather just live my life as an ends to itself. I do not need any purpose to do that, and in fact "finding a purpose" undermines the value of life as an ends to itself by turning it into a means to accomplish something else.
It is not my purpose to live; that I live simply is. To claim that living is a purpose unto itself is to imply that living has a meaning, that there is a significance to it beyond what evidence and reason can substantiate.
There is no evidence that an objective meaning to life exists, merely our subjective projection of meaning onto our lives. I do not engage in that projection for the express reason that I have already stated twice now.
Well, any educated person would realize that evidence for such things is out of the question.
Perhaps because it does not exist. While we cannot know anything with certainty, we can know its probability and there is no evidence to even suggest an objective meaning is remotely possible.
Oh, boy... I'll make sure to get out of your hair then.
Apologies, but I did rather feel I was being forced into redundancy. I gave a rationale and you just kept coming at me asking: but what if you're wrong? I could not do much but repeat myself, and I would rather not have to keep typing the same thing over and over until I get an actual refutation.
Perhaps because it does not exist. While we cannot know anything with certainty, we can know its probability and there is no evidence to even suggest an objective meaning is remotely possible.
What evidence is there against it?
Apologies, but I did rather feel I was being forced into redundancy. I gave a rationale and you just kept coming at me asking: but what if you're wrong? I could not do much but repeat myself, and I would rather not have to keep typing the same thing over and over until I get an actual refutation.
A response does not need to be given to a rhetorical question.
Asking me to find evidence against the non-existence of meaning is not dissimilar from asking someone to find evidence disproving the existence of a non-existent deity. The evidence that something does not exist is the lack of evidence indicating it exists, and the burden of proof is upon those who would claim a thing exists.
A response does not need to be given to a rhetorical question.
What, so I was supposed to just not respond to your posts at all?
Asking me to find evidence against the non-existence of meaning is not dissimilar from asking someone to find evidence disproving the existence of a non-existent deity. The evidence that something does not exist is the lack of evidence indicating it exists, and the burden of proof is upon those who would claim a thing exists.
But the evidence for the existence of a deity, or a meaning in life, is similar to the evidence of extraterrestrials. Experiences, which may or may not be the real thing.
Lack of convincing evidence is certainly a good reason to not believe something, but is it enough to believe that whatever it may be does not exist? Actually, I don't know if we addressed this, but do you just not believe in a deity, or do you believe that a deity does not exist?
What, so I was supposed to just not respond to your posts at all?
Oh, sorry... I thought I had posted more than just the single rhetorical statement. You don't need to respond to comments like those, unless you really want to, I guess.
But the evidence for the existence of a deity, or a meaning in life, is similar to the evidence of extraterrestrials. Experiences, which may or may not be the real thing.
I am sorry, but... what?
Lack of convincing evidence is certainly a good reason to not believe something, but is it enough to believe that whatever it may be does not exist? Actually, I don't know if we addressed this, but do you just not believe in a deity, or do you believe that a deity does not exist?
The total lack of evidence compounded by a ready explanation regarding the origin of the idea is adequate basis for me to find that something is probabilistically non-existent or untrue. This is true both for meaning/purpose in life, and of any deity.
Oh, sorry... I thought I had posted more than just the single rhetorical statement. You don't need to respond to comments like those, unless you really want to, I guess.
In the way that UFO sightings are evidence for extraterrestrials, ghost sightings or NDEs are evidence for an afterlife and God. However, the UFOs spotted may just be military craft and the NDEs and ghost sightings may be hallucinations. It isn't very strong evidence, but it is there.
The total lack of evidence compounded by a ready explanation regarding the origin of the idea is adequate basis for me to find that something is probabilistically non-existent or untrue.
I would say that you have reason to believe what you believe as long as you do not cling to the idea... But everyone has different reasons for believing certain things, and as long as it is not harmful, I don't see any reason in trying to discredit a belief.
In the way that UFO sightings are evidence for extraterrestrials [...] It isn't very strong evidence, but it is there.
I do not consider UFO sightings as evidence for extraterrestrials, and the same goes for NDEs and ghost sightings as evidence for God. To be legitimate evidence in my opinion something must be externally verifiable and accessible to others, otherwise it is purely subjective hearsay.
I would say that you have reason to believe what you believe as long as you do not cling to the idea... But everyone has different reasons for believing certain things, and as long as it is not harmful, I don't see any reason in trying to discredit a belief.
There is a causal reason that people believe what they do, but that does not mean there is an evidential or rational reason that they believe it. I am similarly fine with people believing whatever they like if it does not cause any harm, but I tend to think that most beliefs held absent evidential or rational reason do have harms associated with them. At any rate, my rationale for my disbelief stands for me personally independent of trying to prove that stance to anyone else (or disprove their views).
The meaning of life is different for everyone. It is very individualistic. The meaning of someone's life is determined only after they die. For example, the meaning of Hitler's death was that we would not be living his vision of life any time soon. ;)