Greater purposes

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Well, ultimately we're all just "making stuff up."
...

No, we are making up meaning and purpose. That includes you and the rest of us. That is what you can't wrap your mind around.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nah, this is basic philosophy 101 type stuff, really. It's not about me. Or you.

To be fair, framing it as "making stuff up" isn't a good way to put it, but those were your words so I figured I'd borrow them. It's more accurate to say that the conclusions humans draw about the world are based on experience but that these observations are ultimately subjective in nature (aka, "made up" sort of). Just like declarations about purpose are, to connect this back to the topic of the OP.

Well, they are in part, because there are no observer independent reality. Reality is a combination of subjective and objective.

 

[ppp]

I don't follow how that observation has anything to do with slavery.

In a slave culture, the purposes of many persons are considered to be greater than the purposes of the few. This isn't rocket science.

The over all problem with...

the purposes of the many are greater than the purposes of a single individual (numerically, if nothing else)

...is that it is too simplistic. It is true that the one sometimes has an obligation to the group that overrides the personal wishes of that one. But often one does not.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, they are in part, because there are no observer independent reality. Reality is a combination of subjective and objective.

Fair point. Though if one wants to really go down the rabbit hole we can debate the existence of the objective. I tend to draw a line there, personally.

 

[Quintessence]

...is that it is too simplistic. It is true that the one sometimes has an obligation to the group that overrides the personal wishes of that one. But often one does not.

I'm not talking a bout how various purposes or obligations override or relate to those of others, though. Please read my restated version since I guess I didn't communicate what I intended the first time:

I still don't follow you or see what this has to do with what I wrote. Maybe I didn't state things right. Let me restate, because your response is really confusing to me and has nothing to do with what I intended to communicate.

The OP asks "is there a greater purpose than personal happiness." To me an obvious response is "yes, the happiness of many persons rather than just one person - the universe isn't all about your own ego and your own needs." I don't follow how that observation has anything to do with slavery.

I'm basically just observing that 10 individuals is more than 1 individual. Many personal happinesses are greater than a single personal happiness. Put another way, one individual is not the center of the universe. Does this clarify?

 

[ChristineM]

Nah, this is basic philosophy 101 type stuff, really. It's not about me. Or you.

To be fair, framing it as "making stuff up" isn't a good way to put it, but those were your words so I figured I'd borrow them. It's more accurate to say that the conclusions humans draw about the world are based on experience but that these observations are ultimately subjective in nature (aka, "made up" sort of). Just like declarations about purpose are, to connect this back to the topic of the OP.

Only not everyone is happy to say i thought about that so it must be so. Some people for example require evidence.

In context "making stuff up" is precisely what has been happening.

And regarding connection back to the OP. No problem. I have put the protagonist on ignore

 

[ppp]

I'm basically just observing that 10 individuals is more than 1 individual. Many personal happinesses are greater than a single personal happiness. Put another way, one individual is not the center of the universe. Does this clarify?

I don't see how this is semantically different from your previous posts.
Don't worry about it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sheesh. You are promoting an oxymoron

Real : actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

Spiritual : relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

I do not see an oxymoron because I believe that spiritual things are just as real as material or physical things; in fact, I believe they are more real. Please note that the definition of real does not exclude spiritual things.

 

[ChristineM]

I do not see an oxymoron because I believe that spiritual things are just as real as material or physical things; in fact, I believe they are more real. Please note that the definition of real does not exclude spiritual things.

Glad you believe but i provided both definitions for a reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not see an oxymoron because I believe that spiritual things are just as real as material or physical things; in fact, I believe they are more real. Please note that the definition of real does not exclude spiritual things.

Let us try:
Take purpose. That is not a thing. Is it then a fact as per real : actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed (as per Google). No, not according to standard truth as a fact as a thing that is known or proved to be true (as per Google). Remember truth is evidence as per science.

So if I imagine or suppose a purpose to my life, can I act on it? Yes! It is real? Not according to the definitions.
So what is it with this? Well, it is philosophy in the end. It goes back to the idea of the rational versus feelings. The idea is that you can use truth as a material thing and avoid the mental as feelings. The truth is out there, but it is in fact in us.

But some people don't realize this. And when it is pointed out to them, they don't know what to do, because they believe in this version of real and then they realize that is not how it works.

I used to believe in that, but I checked and figure out that it was nothing but a belief system. I then figure out that religion worked better for me as for purpose and the rest of the non-real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Glad you believe but i provided both definitions for a reason.

A reason is not real according to your definition of real.
It is not a thing and it is not true as per with evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Glad you believe but i provided both definitions for a reason.

I know you did and I know what the reason was...
Sorry that it did not accomplish what you set out to do.

 

[ChristineM]

I know you did and I know what the reason was...
Sorry that it did not accomplish what you set out to do.

I didn't set out to do anything other than provide dictionary definitions and hope people considered them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let us try:
Take purpose. That is not a thing. Is it then a fact as per real : actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed (as per Google). No, not according to standard truth as a fact as a thing that is known or proved to be true (as per Google). Remember truth is evidence as per science.

So if I imagine or suppose a purpose to my life, can I act on it? Yes! It is real? Not according to the definitions.
So what is it with this? Well, it is philosophy in the end. It goes back to the idea of the rational versus feelings. The idea is that you can use truth as a material thing and avoid the mental as feelings. The truth is out there, but it is in fact in us.

But some people don't realize this. And when it is pointed out to them, they don't know what to do, because they believe in this version of real and then they realize that is not how it works.

I used to believe in that, but I checked and figure out that it was nothing but a belief system. I then figure out that religion worked better for me as for purpose and the rest of the non-real.

Real : actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

Spiritual : relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

The issue at hand here is that atheists believe that only material or physical things are real and that spiritual things are imaginary, but that is just their personal opinion, because there is no reason to think that things affecting the human spirit or soul are not real, and if they have an effect they have to be real, even if we cannot see them and prove they exist.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't see how this is semantically different from your previous posts.
Don't worry about it.

I'm gonna worry about it - I hate it when I fail to communicate things well. Maybe this way:

Saying "is there a greater purpose than personal happiness" to me implies that only one person's happiness matters when it comes to life's purpose. It is a self-referential statement, only considering the individual ego or self. Only personal happiness matters; the community doesn't matter; things that don't experience happiness don't matter either. It's all about me, me, me. That is what the statement says and implies from my perspective: there's nothing greater than me, me, me, and my needs. Narcissism, to put another word to it.

I understand that this sort of self-centered perspective is very engrained in the thinking of most English-speaking people, especially Americans. I don't tend to think about things that way, I guess - studied way too much ecology, and my religion doesn't support that way of thinking either. I look at community and ecosystem first, individuals second. So when I hear there's no greater purpose than individual needs, I just get confused. There's no individual in the first place without the surrounding community and the environment. So it ends up sounding like a mismatch of priorities to say that only personal happiness matters or is the greater purpose. None of that would be a thing without the community or the environment.

 

[Trailblazer]

I didn't set out to do anything other than provide dictionary definitions and hope people considered them.

I did consider them but I interpreted them differently than you apparently do, as I just explained:
#234 Trailblazer, A moment ago

 

[ChristineM]

I did consider them but I interpreted them differently than you apparently do, as I just explained:
#234 Trailblazer, A moment ago

I don't see how a precise definition is interpreted any different than the words it contains

 

[Quintessence]

Also, I'm just going to throw this up here too:

Now, pulling out a dictionary might seem like an innocuous act, but frequently it isn’t. Often the motivation behind the turn to the dictionary is not a desire for greater understanding, but a desire for control. Dictionary worshipers do not want to understand how others use words; rather, they want to control how others use words.
...
The fact is that words don’t have have a meaning (singular); they have meanings (plural). Even the dictionary confirms this. In addition, we all know that words have meanings that don’t appear in the dictionary.
The Dictionary Is Not A Holy Book
​

I encourage others not to invoke the dictionary in an attempt to control how others use language. Not just because that isn't how language actually works, but because it means our goal isn't to understand each other. Once someone explains their understanding of something, just run with it for the sake of discussion. If we can't do that, no productive discussion can take place or we cut others out of the conversation.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Real : actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

It is obvious that Love is real, as it occurs as fact.

We know it exists, because if we choose not to Love we are capable of Hate, if we do not want to hate, we have to find Love.

But where is Love, if it is not part of the Spirit we possess as humans? Love also best defines what is a perfect human.

Now animals and plants will be defined by the virtues that they eminate.

But where are the virtues?

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

Also, I'm just going to throw this up here too:

Now, pulling out a dictionary might seem like an innocuous act, but frequently it isn’t. Often the motivation behind the turn to the dictionary is not a desire for greater understanding, but a desire for control. Dictionary worshipers do not want to understand how others use words; rather, they want to control how others use words.
...
The fact is that words don’t have have a meaning (singular); they have meanings (plural). Even the dictionary confirms this. In addition, we all know that words have meanings that don’t appear in the dictionary.
The Dictionary Is Not A Holy Book
​

I encourage others not to invoke the dictionary in an attempt to control how others use language. Not just because that isn't how language actually works, but because it means our goal isn't to understand each other. Once someone explains their understanding of something, just run with it for the sake of discussion. If we can't do that, no productive discussion can take place or we cut others out of the conversation.

My language is based on dictionary definition, or definitions
Not make believe.

A dictionary definition shows the meaning or meaning of the word.

Using the accepted definitions avoids confusion.

But if i am not to use definition then how am to communicate and understand what people mean?