I had a demon cast out and all I needed was a good divorce lawyer. Cost a lot but it worked.

We have had some interesting discussion/debate on this rather broad topic in SMP through the years. Really is too bad that it is not all in one thread.

By the way, I think the answer is: Beer. But I could be wrong.

You get the op

There is nothing such an "ultimate truth"

Its always youserlf

Rules and laws have nothing to do with a meta concept like meaning, they're all about maintaining order.

So you define "the meaning of life" as peace, tranquility and smooth commerce? Because that's the purpose of laws and rules.

Laws and rules speak to maintaining the established order. I guess depending who defines what the established order would determine whether peace and tranquility were part of that order.

But I stand by my prior statement. The fact that we have laws and rules does suggest that life has some greater meaning.

Look into yourself is really ultimate task, when we take it literally, ending in paradox that is there last piece called subject, who cannot see yourself.
Some guys are solving it about at least 1500 years in zen meditation.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Below is: "A Still Life of The Meaning of Life."



A perfect Sunday Morning Post from your loving Mod.

That bookcase is dangerously close to being a cliche.

According to some, a novel is worth 40 pictures.

My bookcase has no room for philosophy. Instead it creates it originally the right way by pure books of Physics and Math and other sciences that build the only perspective that can go places without being cluelessly lost in endless streams of definitions of unrealized and questionable value concepts.

It derives contributions from other places in the apartment too because i have run out of spaces to store papers, books and ebooks+downloaded lectures, documentaries and computers and their many hard drives (because we live in an era that there is no other more economical storage medium of information than a straight hard drive as all else proves more expensive and less efficient in accessing it too).

I keep all my philosophy books (and its many rooms worthy of bookcases of such material) back in Greece where the collection belongs together with my past and origins as a non solipsist.

I also have a database (a ridiculous innovative massive udf nero file of pretend DVD image about to be burned that has terabytes of content in it and will of course never record that image lol) of all my harddrives content in order to know where to go and what to load up (and i have a cool device that you can plug in a harddrive - all have their numerical ids lol - and it reads it in a usb port nomatter what the original hard drive is like - all formats accepted).

Essentially my library is a hybrid of all storage technologies these days. I am proud to declare i am philosophy free in real books and all i have here with me is their versions in ebooks (classics and modern works) that i probably will still never read, as physics and math is more urgent and interesting. Plus that way my philosophy remains original of my own making.

I am happy to say though that i remain old fashioned. I can have all kinds of ebooks in tablets and computers but nothing beats a real book in your hands.

Maybe the technology must be created that instantly converts an ebook to a classical paperback(ie loads it to a paperback that has digital paper pages, gl with that). So you remain with a classical copy in your hands that you load any ebook you want to it and pretend its a standard book. For some reason the classic book format proves more friendly and inviting to me. I wonder how kids that were born to the ebook era feel about this.

Pretty much that everything is a game. It's complicated how you get to that conclusion. But I don't see any reason to ignore all the games that are being played or to define it as something else, there are rule sets, stakeholders, prerogatives that exist behind formal language. Who is playing - only tick box is 'god(s). The term 'god' doesn't mean anything without first answering how yourself is related to god. The ultimate purpose of life - is thus - ''to play the game of finding out how you relate to god.''. There are also superficial purposes, the biological prerogatives, or the socially constructed ones.

Pretty solid group of ppl I'd like to smoke a Harold & Kumar size bag of weed with itt.

I can easily organize bags of weed, if you can all be bothered to come to the Economist Intelligence Unit's World's Most Liveable City. There's one large casino here that offers five-star accommodation at prices that make me feel guilty for being white.

I live dangerously. Or, at least I think I do.

Fortunately(?), that is not my bookcase. I am visiting a friend. Part of my book collection was posted a few years ago, as a backdrop to my gun collection.

FYP. Thank you Douglas Adams.

Having cleared myself of all engrams by contemplating a Zen kōan for approximately 2.7 seconds, I discovered I had a Body Thetan residing just inside my left nostril. I chased it out by playing the first 90 seconds of "I Want To Rock and Roll All Night" by Kiss. I could have played the whole song but I just wanted the BT evicted. I didn't think it right to torture the poor thing.


PairTheBoard

From a logical POV life has no meaning, its "ONLY" in our subjective views and emotion that we give life such things. If there was "meaning" to life on this planet or any other, it seems like logic would be incapable of proving it. Is that a knock on the efficacy of logic though or is meaning something impossible so this can be overlooked? Perhaps am I wrong about the ability or lack there of to prove it.

Anyways, why do people say stuff like "its only subjective" or "it's just what you think"? What would the world look like if humans were completely devoid of emotion and functioned solely on logic? I imagine all music, art, most sports, card games, fiction etc. would be removed. Wouldn't there be a lot of suicides from those who logically conclude that there life is meaningless anyways? Going back to when the 1st humans were on this planet, would we of had a better chance of survival if we only used logic? If we did survive would we of been as advanced technologically? What about the relationship between memory and emotion, the way the brain filters what memories to keep and what not to is largely based on that, so when you take out the emotion what happens?

If you've read this far and agreed with some, most or all of my premises doesn't this show (to some degree at least) that emotion and the subjective is more than just a "just" or an "only"?

In b4 why is human survival and advancement important anyways

If a thing is really "only just" then you need only just mention it. The "only just" is unnecessary. Otherwise the "only just" is only just editorial comment and an opinion.


PairTheBoard

I was trying to say that the subjective/emotional side gets ignored and is deemed unimportant and i'm not sure if thats correct.

Because it is subjective. Same as you call something that is red red. As PTB says stuff like 'its only' or 'its just' is meaningless fluff.

The species would probably die out fairly quickly; without emotion there would not be much point in doing anything.

Along with sex and dinner. As I say extinction event.

Pretty quite place after a few weeks.

Your really confused about what logic is. 'Only using logic' does not make any sense,

Logic is a tool to reason with, not a thing in itself. You use logic to make your objectives easier; you do not do logic to just do logic.

If you are good at logic, then you become better at decisions making. Hence all your actions turn out better.


Just No.

You really need to watch the straw vulcan

I could not bring myself to click the "Skip Ad" button. Those kittens were just so cute.

Then again; I may just do so. And I have. Two recent threads have been merged to form this Ultimate Meaning of Life containment thread. All subsequent OP's started with the above general theme will be moved here. Thus SMP can shower the throbbing masses with our collective wisdom in one simple dazzling thread.

This has been done before, for example when the 2012 end of the world heebie-jeebies hit SMP a number of years ago.

Go wild within the framework of what are legal posts in SMP. If you think Jesus or Buddha or Shiva or Zeus or David Miscavige is the ultimate meaning of Life then please post in RGT as that is the religious containment forum. Thank You.

Please continue..............

I'm really bad at explaining what I mean lol. If emotion and subjectivity is so important then why is it so disregarded in philosophical arguments and science. Why is it irrelevant when the 'meaning of life question' is debated. I appreciate ur thoughts and will check out that link. Thank you

It isn't disregarded.

Why do you think it is disregarded given that it has never been disregarded in the history of philosophical arguments and science.

No philosopher has ever said that it is irrelevant to the meaning of life question. Not one. Not ever. Sentence fragments. Effective.