Talk:Meaning of life
|
|
I suggest that the section re Wittgenstein does need work. Surely the point about Wittgenstein (and I am not sure he is the most relevant person to be referring to in this context) is that he believed that language had its limits and specifically that language was out of its depth when discussing some subjects eg the meaning of life. Of course Ludwig valued eg music and sculpture highly....and doubtless valued life highly....so he undoubtedly thought that life had relevance, importance, value...dare I say meaning. He was talking about the limitations of language.
King Brosby
LMS: I originally wrote "it is one that professional philosophers comparatively tend to avoid." I still think thats true. Certaintly professional philosophers have had plently to say about the meaning of life, but it is less important than the popular image of philosophy would have it. And even some of the philosophers you pointed to as addressing it, tended to avoid phrasing the question as "what is the meaning of life?". (Which isn't to say that no philosopher has ever considered that question, phrased that way; some have.) -- SJK
This much is true: philosophers do not ask the question, specifically, "What is the meaning of life?" nearly as much as someone without a college education might expect. Re "it is one that professional philosophers comparatively tend to avoid." I don't really quite know what that's supposed to mean: compared to whom? The average person? That would be quite obviously false. Anyway, the rest of what you say here is true enough, but that wasn't in the original article. Don't save the details for the talk page! :-) --LMS
Someone added "Unfortunately, the actual question itself remains unknown despite much effort by the mice to calculate it." IIRC, the mice knew what the question was, and then built planet Earth to calculate it, but then by the time it came up with the answer 42, they couldn't remember what the question was... -- SJK
- afraid not. They built the computer Deep Thought to calculate the answer, and after working on it for 7.5 million years Deep Thought grandly pronounced that the answer was 42 - and it was only _then_ that the mice realized that they didn't know what the actual question was in the first place, since the answer didn't make any sense on its own. They built the Earth to calculate the question, so that the answer would make sense.
- Earth was destroyed by a Vogon demolition ship fifteen minutes before it was supposed to output the question. An early readout of the almost-complete question was "what do you get if you multiply six by nine," but it's not known how close this would have been to the actual question had Earth been able to finish its computation as planned. The arrival of the Golgafrincham colonists on Earth may have corrupted its program in unforseen ways too.
- Unfortunately, LMS is probably right that this is too "serious" an article to mention these particular deep truths here. Perhaps a "the exploration of the meaning of life has been the subject of a number of many works of fiction, including..." :)
- In reference to the popular comedy book series The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the meaning of life is sometimes said to be 42, but this is not actually correct. Rather, 42 is the answer to the ultimate question about life, the universe and everything. Unfortunately, the actual question itself remains unknown despite much effort by the mice to calculate it.
I removed the above; no offense intended, but this is not a humor website, and references to the wisdom of one work of fiction on this question are, basically, not justified here. --Larry Sanger
- Also note that Douglas Adams stated in an interview that the number 42 was the first thing that popped into his head. --Thoric 20:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Damn it! Why'd you have to spoil the fun? :)
One might also mention the Monty Python movie of the same title.
Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0085959)--mercifully, the movie title is different from the title of the page... --Humorlessly, LMS
It has been recently postulated from the laws of thermodynamics that life has been created in an attempt for the universe to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium more quickly by expending more energy, i.e. to bring about the heat death of the universe more quickly.
- I think this needs support or rewording. The laws of thermodynamics don't imply that the universe somehow "wants" to convert all its energy into entropic forms, they just describe the fact that it does. In any case, life isn't exactly contributing in any significant way to the process; you might as well say that stars were created for this reason instead. Bryan
- I agree. My (probably flawed) understanding of science's answer to the question is that life wasn't "create", it just "happened", and so it has no particular meaning at all; there is no overarching objective goal or purpose. Wesley
- OK. I'll remove that last part until I (or someone else) comes up with a better way to rephrase it. Drew
- You could perhaps say that life is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. Life tends to form into energy dissipating structures, "feeding" off of an environmental entropy gradient, which might be what you were after. But you should also note that science doesn't actually have anything to say on the "meaning" of life, one way or the other; that's outside of its subject area. It just describes and models it. Bryan
"Science is sometimes criticized for not providing an answer to "the meaning for life", but it does not attempt to do so. Science addresses questions of "what" and "how", but does not attempt to answer "why"." -- I'm not thrilled with this myself - what do y'all think?
- I'm more thrilled with it than the previous version, and I think it's accurate to boot. :) Bryan
- It's a good start. The word "why" needs some explanation; it must be distinguished from the "why" in "why do apples fall". FvdP 22:44 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
- Well...I don't have a particular predisposition for or against scientific answers to the meaning of life. If there's a theory about it based on science instead of religion, then I'll treat it with the same amount of scepticism and such as a religious theory. However, I did notice this written in a science journal and thought it would make a worthy addition - if worked into the article properly. Drew
42 section shortened, and "It has been noted that 42 when read upside down is "2b", or "to be"." removed: 2 is 2 upside down only in the typical digital watch font, and the 4=b is too much of a stretch, especially with the digital watch font. I am Jack's username
- I lengthened it a bit, because the answer WAS found in the end! --there_is_no_spoon 13:00, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Insert contents from The meaning of life: (by snoyes 18:34 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC))
The meaning of life is a philosophical question.
Some psychologists consider it a mental illness.
See also:
- philosophy
- Existentialism
- Nihilism
- Epicurus
- psychology
- science
- mysticism
- spirituality
- religion
- Christianism
- Buddhism and Zen
- Hinduism
- Daoism or Taoism
- Islam
- Pagan religions
- Who Am I?
I don't remember reading the word "evolution" or "replicator" once here... nothing in science can be 100 percent certain, but the answer to the broad question "what is the meaning of life?" has been answered to a great degree of certainty. Richard Dawkin's most economically compact equation for life is "life Results from the Non-Random Survival of Randomly Varying Replicators". Read "the Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
Suggestion: Warning: Wikipedia contains spoilers ;-)
-- APL
I have just sent a letter to every philosopher in the UK asking for their answers.. the responses I've received so far are covered moderately well on this page.. but in due course I will add a summary of any extra insights that I glean - caspar
true story I was sitting in math class, and realized the meaning of life! it was so incredabally simple, that as soon as someone heard it, they would say "oh... and the universe would make sence"
after class I went to my friend to tell him... and I had forgotten...
why are you all looking at me like I'm crazy?
Pellaken 11:39, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't recall the previous version (The meaning of life is to live) being in the film at all (which in any case I would argue is a serious, rather than non-serious, contender, but I stand to be corrected in which case put it back. The three hypotheses I have added are certainly in the movie. Shantavira 12:33, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Arthur Dent's Scrabble letters
I've added a comment pointing out that Arthur Dent could not have drawn "What do you get when you multiply six by nine" from a standard English Scrabble set as there are not enough letters (for example, there are only two Y's, and the sentence contains four). However, this sentence (or any other English sentence, for that matter) is possible if each tile is returned to the bag after it has been drawn and noted. Does anyone know if this is what Arthur Dent did, or did Douglas Adams use a bit of artistic licence here? — Paul G 16:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I seem to recall (I don't have the book with me) that Arthur's scrabble set was a self-made one. Afterall, he was stranded in prehistoric earth at the time. Therefore it is quite possible that he might have remembered the number of letters incorrectly. YY, 14:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Would the Real Meaning of Life Please Stand Up?
Seems there's more on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy here than anything else ;)
Anyways, the meaning of life is simple...
The purpose of life is, and I quote, "To better oneself through forming mutually beneficial relationships". The actual meaning of life is a personal thing, and is for each individual to discover.
If an eight word summary is too wordy for you, it can be summed up with a single word -- live. Think of this not just as a simple verb, but as a command (either from God, for those who are religious, or from the entire Universe for the atheists). The all important will to live that drives all forms of life.
The statement on the purpose of life is obvious, and based completely on how life exists and evolved on this planet.
Meaning cannot truly be imposed upon the masses. There will always be someone who doesn't agree. The purpose, however is clear. If society fails to establish and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with each other and the entire planet, then we will go the way of the dinosaur. --Thoric 20:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
HHGTTG
(Douglas Adams' answer was "42").
True, but that was not the answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?", which the current first paragraph implies. Those who have read the book knows that the question remains unknown, and 42 is NOT the meaning of life, but the "answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything".
Suppose someone was looking for an investigation of the question...
I included a 'see also' to 3 starting points in wikipedia. Each of these contains 'see also' connections to any other 'see also' that anyone could want. I would be against expanding the 'see also' beyond 3 entries Loxley 12:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC).
There Can Ultimately Be Only One True Meaning To Life
I think the most realistic meaning of life comes from science. It is to replicate our DNA as much as possible and to try to spread the human race throughout our solar system and then possibly the universe through the pursuit of technology. If humans remain here on earth then in about 6 billion years (if we're not extinct) our sun will begin to die and our planet would become uninhabitable. Therefore, if the meaning of life isn't the pursuit of scientific knowledge then it ultimately becomes the pursuit of death and extinction (assuming there's no afterlife).
G.Savva
6 Mar 2005 edit
I re-wrote the following paragraph to be less "sure of itself." That is, "science" doesn't 'tell' us this, but some theories 'suggest' it. I also updated the theory to cover some more recent theories regarding what the event was (i.e. a comet rather than lightning bolt?), and IMO improved the flow substantially. --Jacius 03:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Science tells us that life on earth was created by a lightning bolt that electrified a mix of molecules and turned them into a very primitive cell. This cell was capable of copying itself, and by that, life had started. The elements these molecules consisted of, (by us named "organic") are the only elements that could create such complex objects. Thus, life started with a coincidence, and also developed by coincidences, and it will continue this way, unless we fumble with genes too much. Since everything which has got to do with life is based on accidental circumstances, there is reason to believe that life has no reason at all, from a scientific point of view.
It's about 4 things
For most people the Meaning of Life is fundamentally about 4 things: love, sex, money and happiness. Here's why:
- Love because, among other things, it drives parents to care for their children
- Sex because it drives us to spread our DNA and propagate the species.
- Money because so much of our time and energy is devoted to earning it or spending it.
- Happiness because even if you have love, sex and money, that doesn't necessarily make you happy. Happiness, spirituality and a sense of well being is something we all strive for.
--Peter 02:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
--
People have to find their own meaning in in life.