Meaning of life - a fuzzy tautology

[LukeS]

The argument:

For there to be life there must be health.

Health comes on a continuum (from 0 health i.e. dead to 1 maximal flourishing).

It is ontologiclly preferable to be in "better health" than "worse health".

Therefore it is rational (morally appropriate and fitting) to choose health over illness etc. for we ought to choose what is better. Rational is defined as beliefs actions or desires in accord with proper reasoning.

Or if suicide is ever a realised moral option, then we must choose a level of health that is liveable for continued exietence.

Such health keeps us in existence, and also in a qualitatively acceptable one.

This I call rational attraction to Being , because health is rational (being the appropriate choice, qualitatively) and this rationality keeps us alive - i.e. in Being.

So the Meaning of Life is defined a tautologically (i.e. if life = health, a priori) but also as a variable (it is better to choose more health than less health, this is the fuzzy logic element). With the variability giving scope for purposive choices to be made like "I'll go to the gym, Ill eat supper, Ill relax now etc" - i.e. a set of everyday objectives alongside the Being...

The arguments flaw:


If someone is trapped in an unacceptable existence, he's alive but the purposive element is missing...

Additional thoughts:

The meaning of life is a survival mechanism chosen by evolution.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

One big fuzzy word salad mate, not sure what your point is. The only bit I'd agree with is that being dead can be rightly equated with zero health!

 

[LukeS]

Firstly thanks, crackpots usually get ignored.

I have discovered the meaning of life. Ill try and make it interfaith, though I ought to have posted in philosophy.


People of all faiths usually say "mine is the right way" and "yours is the wrong way".

But here is an essence to this.

Mine and way are intimately involved.

So "me" I am healthy, and I am on a way. Through the space-time continuum.

That way must involve health. Or we are dead.

And the health is mine, it is a personal possession.

So if life then health, that's true. That's the framework we are confined to. Life. Its like a maze with varying degrees of health, we are free to roam therein.

But better health is preferable, experientially. So its an ought, something that is good to strive for, and hence a meaning or purpose within the framework of "life".

So, scientifically, I can be compared to you in terms of health, a Buddhists dogma and a Christians dogma, they are side issues. Ok, they - the faiths - relate us to Being (ie existence), in that they form a system of action and reference.

Its like this. Faith A and faith B become commensurable though a common scientific system of reference.

Whereas faith A and B were separate "axiomatic systems" there is common ground (like an intersection of sets) where science can form a perspective.


Science is about measuring the known world. We are bound (bonded, attached, linked) to Being via health. But some forms or manifestations of this "bond" or attachment are better than others. Hence we are not without a rational objective, in that any goal (purpose in life) should be something we ought to choose.

The maze has its bright spots and dark spots, its angels and demons, its highs and lows.

Now, what's right or wrong with that?


The tautology business is just my abstract thinking style. I hope this is more clear.

Whats the good of a meaning of life without a scientific formula? I thought.

So. We ought to choose whats better ("bright spot", "angelic", "high point" etc - depending on your system of reference). Just as evolution selected arms and legs, it selected our experience of well being as something which radically orients people within the cosmos.

Not only are we skating on ice, we have a "game- specific" system of scores or feedback, and as such balancing mechanism too.

 

[LukeS]

I need help with the equation.


I don't know symbolic logic, but here are the terms.

If life then variable health. If variable health and choice, then good health ought to be chosen because eits preferable. If something ought to be chosen it is a legitimate purpose. If life and choice and variable health, then aiming towards good health is the purpose. Health keeps us in existence (being), therefore because health varies the quality of being varies, and so rationally there are optimum and minimum relationships to being. Choosing the optimal is more raitonal then the minimal, so our purposive relationship to being is to optimise health by exercising rationaliy...

 

[blü 2]

There's no great mystery about the meaning of life.

Humans evolved in a particular way ─ the basics, survival and breeding, are done in cooperative tribes. The winners in this system are those best at climbing, or at least staying on, the social ladder.

The majority of primate societies work by one-to-one social relationships. The larger the brain, the more such relationships and the better your survival chances in such a system. Humans have the biggest primate brains and easily the most one-on-one relationships for the average person.

So we're equipped by evolution to feel good if we have a place in the tribe, a fair shot at surviving, a partner to breed with, or at least to live purposefully with, and the protection, nurture and raising of offspring. We're animals, after all, and that's what animals need to do.

That's broad-brush, of course, but it's the pen that draws those life-maps in our heads.

 

[LukeS]

Thatnks for that!! My idea "araiotnal attraction to beoing" set off as evolutionary, we are evolved to prefer health, but than turns out to be a transcendent. Whilst evolution may be false, and alternatively were created etc or in a computer simulaiton etc theres an essence to choosing preferability, to making the right rational choice within any meaningful framework where actions are orderly and not in a totally randomised dream like circumstance. And this if its life supporting is attraction to being.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well life serves a useful purpose. Maybe not so much a purpose to life as much as there is a purpose to be found with life.

 

[LukeS]

There's no great mystery about the meaning of life.

Humans evolved in a particular way ─ the basics, survival and breeding, are done in cooperative tribes. The winners in this system are those best at climbing, or at least staying on, the social ladder.

The majority of primate societies work by one-to-one social relationships. The larger the brain, the more such relationships and the better your survival chances in such a system. Humans have the biggest primate brains and easily the most one-on-one relationships for the average person.

So we're equipped by evolution to feel good if we have a place in the tribe, a fair shot at surviving, a partner to breed with, or at least to live purposefully with, and the protection, nurture and raising of offspring. We're animals, after all, and that's what animals need to do.

That's broad-brush, of course, but it's the pen that draws those life-maps in our heads.

After a while I think I got it, purpose equals reproduction.? What about people with issues tho, who cant replicate... does that make nihilism true for them?

 

[LukeS]

Well life serves a useful purpose. Maybe not so much a purpose to life as much as there is a purpose to be found with life.

Well we have a purposive faculty, so there are at least micro pusposes.... even if theres no macro purpose. I think that's the existentialist position.

 

[blü 2]

After a while I think I got it, purpose equals reproduction.? What about people with issues tho, who cant replicate... does that make nihilism true for them?

It doesn't ─ or at least it needn't ─ deny them society, friendship, intimacy, sharing, warmth. Or success, or achievement of personal dreams and ambitions. But propagating's a wish deeply built into us.

 

[LukeS]

It doesn't ─ or at least it needn't ─ deny them society, friendship, intimacy, sharing, warmth. Or success, or achievement of personal dreams and ambitions. But propagating's a wish deeply built into us.

Agreed.

Where Ive gone from there is relate that to evolution, all those things you mention are healthy (in due context), and are discovered to be preferble on occasion because of a) innate genetics, b) cultural learning and c) individual learning..

Where as being burnt is generally innately avoid worthy, things get less and less clear cut the further we go from those genetic margins.

 

[Shantanu]

The argument:

For there to be life there must be health.

Health comes on a continuum (from 0 health i.e. dead to 1 maximal flourishing).

It is ontologiclly preferable to be in "better health" than "worse health".

Therefore it is rational (morally appropriate and fitting) to choose health over illness etc. for we ought to choose what is better. Rational is defined as beliefs actions or desires in accord with proper reasoning.

Or if suicide is ever a realised moral option, then we must choose a level of health that is liveable for continued exietence.

Such health keeps us in existence, and also in a qualitatively acceptable one.

This I call rational attraction to Being , because health is rational (being the appropriate choice, qualitatively) and this rationality keeps us alive - i.e. in Being.

So the Meaning of Life is defined a tautologically (i.e. if life = health, a priori) but also as a variable (it is better to choose more health than less health, this is the fuzzy logic element). With the variability giving scope for purposive choices to be made like "I'll go to the gym, Ill eat supper, Ill relax now etc" - i.e. a set of everyday objectives alongside the Being...

The arguments flaw:


If someone is trapped in an unacceptable existence, he's alive but the purposive element is missing...

Additional thoughts:

The meaning of life is a survival mechanism chosen by evolution.

The meaning of life is definitely a survival mechanism not just chosen by evolution but engendered by a higher Power.

 

[LukeS]

The way I see it rational attraction to Being is close to sat chit ananda (being, consciousness and bliss). You probably know of satchitananda from Hindu traditions?

 

[MavenMaven]

Your question is so foggy. Your equation doesnt really make sense... Why does it matter if a person is in good or bad health? Does their live not have a purpose? Are you speaking about people who are in their death beds, people born with severe disabilities?

What does this have to do with the meaning of life? What do survival mechanisms have to do with that question? This entire thread is really foggy. Good title, though.