Why do human beings exist?

Humans are a result of life (biology). How does life come about?
It is an emerging property of chemical systems. As such, life is a chemical system that propagates itself, maintains itself and passes on this mode of existence.

In a universe of infinite time and possibilities – an event like the above has a higher number of occurrences than moral beings like to believe.

So if that’s the reason – what is the meaning? We give meaning to things, because it is a system of representation in our nervous system. In other words, find your reason and purpose, this should be enough so long it directly or indirectly helps you enjoy this remarkable event. (Directly, self interest; indirectly – biological altruism—helping others helps your survival).

Because the mushroom spoke to the monkey.

The same reason as bacteria, we feed off the a larger body, this planet of ‘ours‘?? :-/ we are just another biological element thrown in the mix, nothing more nothing less…… look to Mother nature….. she’s all we are…

Because we can.

I’m gonna go with… 42.

I have been observing your planet for a very long time and can tell you that this human called @phoebusg is wise beyond the norm.

Human beings are my hobby. I see good ones, not-so-good ones, and two named Palin and Beck and who defy all understanding… who, in fact, single-handedly,diminish the quality of your entire race. Both are due in the near future for deep anal probes.

I shall be happy to share more intergalactic knowledge if you wish.

You don’t, you’re just a figment of my imagination.

The solipsists are here. @Artistree
Thank you @Austinlad – I will try not to let that add to my complacency :)

Someone’s gotta make the coffee right?

God knows!!!

@phoebusg said it quite succinctly. I honestly couldn’t say it better myself.

I will add that I think the beauty of the chance occurences that came together to produce life on our little planet are wonderful. I am grateful to be a part of it.

It’s all part of God’s plan

Why does anything else?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir because it always did.
Why?
Because there can’t be nothing.
Why?

Why can’t there be nothing?

Evolution, then some more basic functions of the universe.

Then there’s the purpose of the universe which we can never know. Have a nice day.

God was bored and need something to occupy his time. I don’t know just a guess.

@phoebusg In many places there is nothing, comparatively speaking.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I disagree. We see nothing, but that does not mean there is nothing. I’ll agree to the comparative part. Nothing-er than usual ;)

@phoebusg Well, we know there are no humans in some places.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir sure, but that’s not nothing :) In other words, nothing is a ghost and a mental tool relating to our way of thinking and senses.

There is a thousand different answers to this question, or should I say, speculations and educated guesses. When I think of this question my answer is that the earth is the right distance away from the sun.

@phoebusg Denial of materialistic existence, in itself, does not constitute solipsism. Isn’t Wiki wonderful, I’m amazed I managed to imagine it :-)

@phoebusg Yes, yes, I get that – I was using ‘nothing’ to mean ‘no humans’.

@Artistree thanks. Wiki is amazing, especially with more contributors. Not perfect – but great.

Life is its own justification for being. It does not need some “higher purpose” ( although I strongly suspect there IS one ). As for human beings per se, our primary purpose is to be caretakes and husbandmen of every other form of life, and indeed for the entire biosphere. This is the reason we have been given conscious minds, so that we can use them to nurture and protect life.

Because God said so, dammit.

Why do human beings exist? The same reason all mammals, insects, fish, birds, bacteria, plants, and every other form of life does. The same reason this whole world and universe existed. There’s no particular reason for it; as far as I’m concerned, all of this is one big cosmic accident (not in the bad way; just that it was not intentional). But since we’re here, it’s up to us intelligent(?) beings to create our own meaning.

Because God needed something to laugh at.

Humans exist as the result of evolution by natural selection favouring our existence. Humans exhibit a myriad of traits that are favourable to our survival and reproduction. As organisms accumulated these traits they became better at surviving, and eventually humans emerged as a species seperate to the other apes. Our intelligence gave us a huge survival advantage over the other animals, and gradually we came to dominance.

In a metaphysical sense though, there is no reason. As far as I can see, there is no reason to assume there must be a reason for our existence. Humans have always tended to ascribe purpose and meaning to inanimate objects and random events, for example the flooding of the Nile River meant that the gods were happy with the Egyptian people. The same is true for life – there is no reason to assume purpose outside of ourselves, so it most likely that there is none. If our existence was to have a purpose, it would need to have been given by an external, pre-existent intelligence (which is impossible). Therefore it is up to us to form our own purpose, which is to fulfil the role of a human as directed by evolution.

Ahh that’s the easy part. Now coexisting…...that we find a little tricky at times.

I read some of these answers and fall into deep, deep dispair. : ((

I was being flippant before…sorry….

It’s becoming more obvious through the limits of science that there is more to the reason why we humans are here other than pure evolution…the mind-matter problem suggests that there is an amazing force of will behind the inimitable beauty of the human and it cannot be explain in reducible scientific form…perhaps it is after all some form of spirituality…However, I very much doubt that it is as a result of a God in the sense that so many humans seem to plague us with

I feel like responses relating to evolution, the physical nature of life, etc., are more the answer to how we exist (i.e., we’re collapsing “why” into “how”). @FireMadeFlesh – this is nitpicky, of course, but is there really anything but a metaphysical sense to why? Why implies a reason, and reason really doesn’t factor into the physical world except in the causality realm, I believe (Why is Y? Because X occured to cause Y). So “why” is relegated to the realm of the metaphysical.

In the metaphysical context, I’m of the mind that there never is a “right” answer, even in the most basic questions. “Why did you come here today?” will elicit the response “I need to apply for a passport” but that implies a realm of other subsidiary reasons (e.g., because I want to leave this country without having to worry about hassle from the government, and a passport is “how” I can make that happen). I think there is pretty much a “best” reason, though (which is “why” (he he) I’m glad this thread is here).

For me, I would articulate the reason why as “Human beings exist in order to create as much benefit to life as possible while causing the least harm.” Benefit and harm can, of course, bring up questions of moral relativism, but that is part of the refinement getting to the best way to express the best answer (note: I won’t claim that this is the best articulation of the best answer, but it’s what I’ve come to believe so far). And I think it stands in the face of arguments that there is no reason, things just are. First, if you disagree and believe there is a reason, I believe the “cost/benefit” approach to our relationship with life in general makes us figure out how everything we do matters. Second, if you agree that there is no reason, I believe you’re hard-pressed to argue that we therefore shouldn’t approach our lives in order to promote the best situation for all on the average (e.g., arguing that means that you’re willing to risk being worse off because your philosophy dictates there’s nothing better).

That was a lot, right? ;-)

I agree with @RealEyesRealizeRealLies, via Terrence McKenna. Primitive apes found psychedelic mushrooms and now we pave over fertile soil, waste food on a ridiculous level, and kill each other in the name of non-existent gods.

@lynneblundell You may be interested in this video on the cumulative effect of bacteria. At present, we have only been able to model small neurological networks. In a similar way, it is possible that the cumulative effect of the huge number of neurons in the human brain allows it to pass a threshold of complexity, above which intelligence arises. Just speculating.

@iamthemob I think there is more to it. The question ‘why’ implies purpose, but I think it also implies mechanism. I always tend to provide too much information rather than not enough, simply because I want to cover all possibilities of what the OP may have been asking.

@FireMadeFlesh Emergentism…like grains of sand through an hourglass… the trouble is that the only emergent properties that have been acknowledged by science are those of nuclear, electromagnetic or gravitational force…any other emergent property has only been classed as something non-physical; that of consciousness..but perhaps consciousness is a fundamental force in itself? Perhaps science needs to expand to accommodate the abilities of consciousness. If properties of the human mind are irreducible it is perhaps in this that lies the answer to why we are here…do you not think?

@FireMadeFlesh:

I feel like the criticism is warranted if we’re discussing whether there’s a right answer to the question. I feel like it doesn’t really work if we’re looking for a best approach to defining our purpose or reason. I certainly believe that there’s more to it. But we’re not going to know if we’re right until we’re dead (i.e., I doubt this is a scientific thing, it must be answered by a higher power, and a higher power is a necessary assumption if we claim there is a reason or purpose for our being).

And I didn’t mean to imply that you shouldn’t answer things that are potentially part of what the OP was asking – I think that’s the ideal strategy, I think. However, I believe that such opinions of information should be put out there in order for the merits of both their content as well as whether it SHOULD be part of the discussion in the end. I apologize, therefore, if I gave the impression that there’s no utility to bringing the why’s of mechanics into it.

@iamthemob

”Life is its own justification for being. It does not need some “higher purpose” ( although I strongly suspect there IS one ). As for human beings per se, our primary purpose is to be caretakes and husbandmen of every other form of life, and indeed for the entire biosphere. This is the reason we have been given conscious minds, so that we can use them to nurture and protect life.”

@CaptainHarley quite! x

@CaptainHarley

Aren’t we then pretty much saying the same thing? And I don’t know if “Life is its own justification for being” though – accepting it as true, even, people still feel the need to try to give it one. That probably won’t change (e.g. religion as the opiate of the masses). I think that the fact that people feel the need to give life a meaning, a purpose, justifies seeking one. And we better monitor that carefully so it’s something that does end up nurturing life generally – otherwise, we get DANGEROUS dogma followed with blind faith by religious fanatics. Fanatics don’t respond to reason, so it’s best to head it off at the pass.

@iamthemob It just means it’s a choice and you can’t go wrong.

Do we need a reason? Isn’t existing the reason we exist? I think understanding what that existence is, not why it is, is the ultimate purpose. But I guess why is a part of what. I just think we’re going to have problems understanding the what if we get too hung up on the why.

@iamthemob

I agree, mostly. : )

@Zyx:

Hmm, I’m not sure I’m clear on what you mean by that. The statement seems conclusory to me – just because it’s a choice doesn’t mean that it can’t go very, very wrong. History is rife with examples of people committing acts of almost incredible atrocity because of what I argue is a choice based on their belief of the purpose or reason (or value, therefore) of life (i.e., if you don’t believe that there’s a reason to be alive, how do you argue that individual lives have value?).

@Blondesjon “find the others”

;)

Carl Sagan imagined that we are the way for the Universe to understand itself. A compelling notion, and not a bad mission if true.

@josie

Nice.

@josie

I agree.

Ties in with Adviata Vendanta and other non-dual theories.

We are consciousness experiencing itself through every possible life form.

I can dig it, resonates with me. :-)

@lynneblundell I see your point, but I disagree. Consciousness is reducible into its component parts. Such a process gave Alan Turing the ideas for data processing in computers, which he designed to reflect his own basic thought processes in problem solving. I do not think consciousness can be a fundamental force, because then it would need something other than the electromagnetic biochemical interactions between neurons to act, and there is no evidence of any other process being involved in consciousness.

@iamthemob I have no problem with healthy criticism. Thanks for your input. Marcus Aurelius said that a man’s purpose no sexism intended, but this is his terminology is to act as a man should, or according to the nature of man. In the light of modern science, we can say that a person’s purpose is to act according to their role as prescribed by evolution, which is to further the cause of humanity in survival and abilities. That would be a scientific inference. The issue of purpose can be argued from any angle though, so science is only one way of approaching the argument. We could approach it from a more philosophical sense and say any meaning that may exist is beyond the bounds of possible knowledge, so any discussion of the point is speculation.
I tend to think that purpose is a human trait, like we say the purpose of a car is transportation, so only creations of humans can have a purpose. We did not create ourselves (I’m not referring to procreation here), so we have no innate purpose, but we do create our lives as we go, which gives us the ability to choose the purpose for our lives. That makes it far more specific than Marcus Aurelias’ generalisation, but I think it is potentially more accurate.
A little nit-picking, you said that “we’re not going to know if we’re right until we’re dead”, when in reality we won’t know anything when we’re dead. I guess that leaves the question unanswerable, if you want to stick with notions of a single absolute purpose. Welcome to Fluther!!

Humans exst to film each other crushing their testicles to post on youtube to amuse me.

@FireMadeFlesh

You said: A little nit-picking, you said that “we’re not going to know if we’re right until we’re dead”, when in reality we won’t know anything when we’re dead. I guess that leaves the question unanswerable, if you want to stick with notions of a single absolute purpose. Welcome to Fluther!!

But I say: Prove that we won’t know anything when we’re dead! :-) Indeed, my point there is that purpose implies creation for such purpose, so if we do believe in purpose, we should accept a creator. Which makes the idea of afterlife part of the equation, although not a requirement.

Actually, it’s only by stroke of luck and probably a little ingenuity that species Homo is here at all. There’s a really good podcast that explains that about 190,000 years ago there was a big ice age that covered most of the planet. On the southern coasts of Africa there were some wetlands that only a few hundred humans were able to survive (genetic estimates put it at 600 breeding pairs). We were almost an extinct species.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=when-humans-almost-died-out-earthy-10-08-12

It’s ALL speculation.

We teeterrd on the edge of extinction, perhaps, but who’s to say that, that edge, was not brought back from the verge by a higher powers intervention?

‘Consciousness’ cannot be measured, it simply is.

Universal ‘consciousness’ IS.

Science wishes it could explain everything, compartmentalize all the mystery into tidy little theories, but it cannot.

And yes, @iamthemob

We won’t know anything til we’re dead, that IS a FACT! :-)

Leaving space for the infinite possibilities is the true measure of intelligence.

I say celebrate the mystery!

@iamthemob Consciousness, which is the essence of existence, is not known to exist anywhere but the neurological structures or the brain. We know that when people die, the brain decomposes with the rest of the body. Therefore consciousness cannot survive death, because the structure that facilitates its existence is destroyed, and so we won’t know anything when we are dead, because neither the self nor the ability to know will exist.

@FireMadeFlesh

I disagree.

Consciousness is all pervasive, the brain is just a conduit, not consciousness itself.

This is where the the phrase ‘eternal life’ evolves from.

The body dies and with it the brain but consciousness does not.

This does not mean we will remain ‘conscious,’ cognitive, in the way we experience our consciousness while in bodily form, but it also does not mean that what we truly are, pure awareness, will not transcend beyond the limitations of the physical.

Again, we cannot know the unknowable.

To exist!

@Coloma While I respect your opinion, I cannot personally accept it. I also never said that the brain is consciousness; I said that consciousness exists only in the brain. Consciousness arises through the interplay of subconscious thought processes, and as far as I know is not directly related to the structure of the brain.
I can’t place the exact thread, but I think we have had this discussion before, and we have different definitions of consciousness.

More importantly than why, is how. Only when the how questions are answered do you ever get to the why. Do I sound too much like Yoda here or what?

@FireMadeFlesh

I feel like you’re almost begging the question – you state that consciousness is “not known” to exist outside the brain, that the brain decomposes at death, and therefore consciousness does not survive after death. But that logic assumes the conclusion as correct as part of the analysis – it is structurally the same argument as “Betty has only lived in her house. We know that once houses have been demolished, no one can live there. Therefore, Betty will not be able to survive outside her house.” This is why arguments about why we are here can become, at times, unsatisfying. Connecting purpose at all to biology diverts the conversation to something else. You have to assume that the purpose is already there. If you don’t, the answer is “We’re here because the astronomical, geological, chemical and evolutionary conditions were such that it produced us.” So if that’s it, what do we do next?

@iamthemob We learn about the astronomical, geological, chemical and evolutionary conditions that produce us. When on the path to a goal, one is already at that goal—in exploring what we are so that we may find purpose, is purpose. Consciousness is just a part of what we are, we don’t have to go by anything more than what we know about it. Holding something grandiosely is just as disrespectful as belittling it.

@zophu:

But why do we learn about them?

@iamthemob Fair comment. The scientific part of my posts are relying on the anthropic principle to some extent, which I find ultimately unsatisfactory, but is the best available tool in many situations like this. I also should have rephrased “not known to exist” to say that all proposed mechanisms by which consciousness may exist outside the brain are ill-defined and unfalsifiable, and therefore are not valid theories. That does not mean they are wrong, just that there is no reason to believe them (unless you just want to, which is fair enough as long as you don’t promote it as truth).

@FireMadeFlesh

But (as to the consciousness argument) the opposing side cannot be proven either, by implication. That consciousness is known to exist in the structures of the brain is more specifically to say that we have complex personalities formed by our relationships with the outer world, and we have an internal world that is isolated from others, and since there are parts of our brain controlling higher functioning, the way impulses are sent through the brain is what causes consciousness. But that’s more an assumption than it is a proof. I think this makes each side equally viable, so why not believe in the one that will be the most productive? This is why I think that we should divorce the “why are we here” question from these same types of physical arguments (or anthropic ones – we’re here because the conditions of observable existence must be conformed in a way that they can be observed) – once we say we’re here because of evolotion (simplification, of course), where do we go?

@iamthemob That is more of an assumption than a proof, and it is nothing like the proofs used by materialists like myself. Brain damage is known to make huge changes to a person’s mental state and abilities. A stroke can alter personality, taste in music, temper, abstract reasoning ability, and even the likelihood of spiritual beliefs in victims. If a stroke can alter personality, but consciousness does not exist in the brain, then either:
1. Consciousness in whatever form it does exist is sympathetic to the state of the brain, and any differences are therefore inconsequential.
2. Consciousness exists in multiple strands, and the activities in the brain have little to do with who the person was in the first place, and therefore friends and family didn’t know who the victim really was to begin with (which is absurd).
Brain death is the ultimate brain damage, to the point where the person isn’t just altered or impaired, but they cease to be.

Maybe science should be divorced from the question of purpose, which is why I gave the different approaches I did above, but I still think it is relevant at least as background knowledge.

@iamthemob The ultimate purpose is to explore, so that more evident purposes may come about. Or maybe, the more evident purposes come about so that the ultimate purpose of exploration can be sustained.

To learn about our existence is to understand its purpose, so learning is the purpose. We would only need to understand if it was our purpose alone. It’s everyone’s purpose, living and dead. So there’s no reason for you or I or anyone in this entire generation of living humans to understand. It may be that no one will ever understand.

I imagine a world where people are only as comfortable as they are insatiable for awareness. A world far more “productive” than one where people are comfortable producing in some kind of mandatory shortsightedness; satisfied in their “understanding” that consciousness is reason enough to exist, regardless of the existence they are comfortable not having sight of by mandate. . . Or something like that. . . I’m very sleepy, sorry.

@FireMadeFlesh I’m not saying this will change your mind but it is an intersting read, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/carter/consciousness.htm I would of posted my own content here but my computer is really acting up again (screen is red and green). I’m struggling to see what I am typing.

@iamthemob I do not think CaptainHarley is talking about dogmatic religion. Religion and Spiritualism are two completely different belief systems. His remarks sounded Spiritualist to me anyway.

@Jabe73 Thanks for that article. However, they have missed some key points. First, dualism is unfalsifiable. I am unaware of any dualist theory that has proposed a mechanism of the mind as the interaction between particles, whatever they may be. We reject many possible hypotheses on the same basis, because a hypothesis that cannot be tested cannot be useful, while one that makes testable predictions based on known phenomena is more relevant. By Occam’s Razor we are to choose the simpler of rival theories, and dualist requirements of a whole new physics to describe the mind, or the flat out assumption that it is unexplainable, makes it needlessly complex over and above materialist theories.
Second, dualism is an abstraction of the issues surrounding consciousness, and provides nothing towards solving these issues. Much like panspermia, if you accept dualism you are then confronted with exactly the same problems that materialism faces, but you have no evidence or data to work with. Much like the lumineferous aether of Maxwell’s day, dualism may or may not be true, but it is ultimately superfluous.

I find it curious that a lot of the time, we as humans, feel we are somehow owed an answer to the “why” questions. As if there just must be an answer or something.

@Jabe73

I don’t think (I may have been, though) I was making the assumption that he was talking about religion – if I was…lord, I hate doing that. :-)

However, the argument that life has it’s own meaning and people are left to their own nature in their choices prevents ANY moral judgment. I think there needs to be SOME. And a lot of people feel the need to find a moral structure. How we choose to set that up is important to watch, which we cannot do in a “live and let live” society. Sometimes we need to step in and say “You’re wrong, stop what you’re doing.” People look to a higher power for that guidance and always will. Reaching a point where we all live according to our own nature is too anarchistic…we’re too social. So I think there will always be some form of religion, so we better all participate in what form that is.

Philosophy aside, my Cat feels humans exist to provide for him. He demands laptime, food and attention on demand.

@FireMadeFlesh Interesting points (many which I agree with), frankly even I have some doubts that I am right because afterall even I’m a skeptical person. Like I said in previous posts I think there may be some truth to my beliefs (not because of what other people tell me or what I’ve read) but through my own personal experiences. I know you have said a few times that there is a “scientific” reason for the likelyhood of such happenings. Maybe the day will come when ghosts, spirits, the afterlife, esp and other phenomenon will be considered to be a real part of science we do not understand yet. There should always be a spark of doubt in any good skeptic or scientist. I actually have alot of respect for you and other atheists on here (even though at times I openly disagree with many of you) because at least you go by evidence. Fundamentalist religious people will never do this.

@iamthemob I’m not saying you are wrong but you can still believe in a “higher purpose” and be an atheist. There are several in-between philosophies here between hardcore religion and atheism. There are atheistic religions that believe in reincarnation and an afterlife with “karma” as their core principles. A higher purpose does not necessarily mean this is an omnipotent Christian or Muslim god. In fact deism and atheism are very similar except deism implies that there was a creating force (call it god if you will) but this force walked away or is not involved with its “creation”. Outside of the core belief in a creating force or god there are really no differences between what most deists and atheists scientifically believe. Most deists do not even believe in an afterlife, ghosts/spirits and other “supernatural” phenomenon. A deist still can have spiritual beliefs however (though in the minority). Many deists have “hope” there is an afterlife however just like a higher purpose. Deists still have a core belief in god but beyond that not much else.

@Jabe73
Now I’m interested – what are the athiestic Karma based religions of which you speak – and how does Karma come into play? To be honest, if you’re talking about Karma as the force ensuring the good and bad you put out comes back to you…that requires that it make a moral judgment about your actions, doesn’t it? And since it’s determining consequences, isn’t that Karma sitting in judgment upon mankind? That sounds a lot like god in anything but semantics…but is it more chaotic then?

At the same time, I’m not sure that you can believe in a higher purpose and be an atheist. Where does the higher purpose come from? I’m not saying that atheists must be immoral, unethical, etc. – I don’t think a belief in god is essential for a moral structure. But in all honesty, that’s a moral structure that would be adhered to for the most part because everyone agreed that it was the best way for everyone to live out their lives. That’s not really a higher purpose…it’s simply saying “If it’s good for all of us generally, it will probably be better for me.” Democracy isn’t a “higher form” of government than communism – arguably, the opposite is true. But democracy has worked better so far, so we westerns tend to go along with it.

@Jabe73 Maybe they will be regarded as genuine scientific endeavours one day, and people will laugh at our ignorance, but I think the probability of that scenario is low enough to disregard the supernatural at this point in time. If significant reason to believe or at least investigate further was presented to me though, I would be eager to do so. Your article did give me a new respect for dualists though, and I thank you for that.

@iamthemob I’m not arguing lives have value, pretty sure they don’t. Anywhat, the word “and” should have made it pretty clear those were two seperate statements. “Life is it’s own justification” implies living “life” is the point. “Life” is filled with death, which we shouldn’t fear as much as we do. It means we don’t exist “because” but we just exist.

@Zyx

I’m sorry that I just didn’t get what should have been clear. ;-)

That response should be read with good-natured sass if you were kidding around with the “and” statement. If you were seriously criticizing me…what the what? Really man?

Addressing content: I didn’t say you were arguing life had value…did you assume that the you meant you, singular? Nope, it was the collective you…the entire statement was providing an example of something where something that is “just a choice” goes wrong.

I still don’t get how “it’s just a choice and you can’t go wrong” leads to the statement you just made, though. First, “and” is a conjunction and generally implies things that are connected to and not separate from each other. Also, even if they should be separate, I still don’t see where you stand. Saying that lives DON’T have value is scary though…I feel as though the death of those I love in my life would cause a profound loss in mine. Finally, the purpose of life being just to live begs the question “What does it mean to live? Is it surviving? If more, what?”

@iamthemob How could I be serious and use the word “anywhat”?

Anyway, it might help to know I’m writing this with the undisprovable “Apathy is to philosophy what objectivity is to science” hypothesis in my head. So nothing matters, everthing just is. I’m taking causality completely out of the equation. Of course I wouldn’t be able to handle my own life with such dispassion but it seems pretty solid on paper.

Finally to your last question: Why should we be able to understand ourselves considering where we probably come from (evolution, function)? Our minds are a little oversized but it seems impossible for something to know everything about itself. Choices are hard so we think of values and constructs of theories which make sense most of the time but are still just speculation. No human knows the purpose of human existance, so why speculate?

@Zyx

Phew. Sorry…testiness aside then.

We can understand ourselves better, I think, through the community study of ourselves. One person can’t do it, but many have the capability. I don’t think anyone’s going to “know themselves” thoroughly – there are situations where you hope you behave a certain way…but who knows until it happens.

And the point of speculation is kind of why “apathy is to philosophy as objectivity is to science” is off. Apathy is the absence of emotional investment…but it’s a description of a (non)reaction to things happening, not a way things are approached. Objectivity is necessary to science because it allows the scientist to approach an experiment as if the results either way were neutral, so they could be better determined as valid. In essence, it’s how the scientist stays open-minded to all results, and still implies curiosity.

Stating, “We don’t know what this is, so why bother asking” is an apathetic approach, true. But I feel like a philosophical counter is something along the lines of “rational” or “empirical”...but something that implies a will to investigate. So what if we might not figure it out? Surely we’ll figure out some things that it’s NOT on the way….

@iamthemob Your last statement seems completely nonsensical to me, how can you ever completely exclude something when we don’t know anything about the most basic rules of the universe? Maybe quarks are made up silly demons with which we need to negotiate. Apathy in philosophy prevents me from claiming so until I lose my mind. Apathetic philosophy is the pool of axioms, you apply it every time you think you’re using reason. And as for the speculation, it’s cool by me, but I enjoy it in a fictional format to keep science clean and useful.

(1) the purpose of mankind is to consume as much of the earth’s resources as possible, without regard to planning for their replenishment.

(2) the purpose of mankind is to wipe out the Jewish scourge.

These both are purposes which I would claim, with a sense that I’m not going to hear debate, are completely and utterly inconsistent with whatever is the true purpose of man.

I think there are some things that we can explore as possibilities for our direction which will lead us to fairly safe assumptions as to the fact that they’re just not right.

Because God wants to show his beautiful creation to some one to praise it and enjoy it.
But we choose destruction, wars , differences, separations. Those are our choice, and that is why we feel pain and sufferings.

I forgot why I was following this discussion so I scrolled up the page to find that I had just put up a really stupid post in a discussion I had no place being in. Again. Crap.

Just to piss me off.

Humans, like any and everything else, just are. There is no “why.”

Why do earthworms and tigers exist? Why does bacteria exist?

It makes me sad to go into these old questions and see all the people who have gone..

cannon fodder.

Cannon fodder?

Cannon fodder. Good answer! Very thought provoking!

♪ “Hello Mudder. Hello Fodder. Here I am at. Camp Granada.” ♫