The Meaning of Life is to give your life meaning.

But what is pleasure?

It is mere sensations that for the purpose of survival and reproduction feel naturally "good". And what is it that acts purely for survival and reproduction?

An animal.

This is the distinct difference between humans and animals--we can extend ourselves far beyond the realm of survival and reproduction, developing civilization, religion, philosophy, science, and art. We are truly the masters of the known universe, so why not live up to that? Why not find the epitome of life?

As for your thingama about "wishing"--well, what is a wish? It is an extension of desire. The English word "desire" can be divided into three subgroups--need, want, and wish. A need is that which is vital for psychological, emotional, mental, and physical existence and equilibrium. Want is that which is unnecessary, but nevertheless realistic. A wish is an unnecessary and unrealistic desire--for example, eternal youth. It can be quite easily empirically and rationally proved that indulging in whimsical wants and wishes leads to spiritual and psychological suffering . Just look at any 50 year old broad who has had 15 facelifts, botox, perms and anti-perms--they look 20 years older and permanently pained, dissatisfied, restless (either that or constipated).

Deviant: Wow, that answers a whole lot

Edited by - Wilde on 2/4/2005 3:43:19 PM

If you ask my friend Alex, it's bagel.

That's right, the answer to life is bagel.

Your definition of pleasure is wrong.

Prove that to me, don't just state it. Empirical and biological evidence is in my favour; please, prove to me that the way I define pleasure is not correct. I ask you how else can you explain why sex is pleasurable, why food is enjoyable to eat? This all relates to evolution; those who find sex pleasurable are more likely to engage in the act more, thus producing more viable offspring and subsequently genetically dominate the species. Those who enjoy eating will not let themselves wither away and die but rather will eat until full--and what is the sensation of "fullness" but the body's message that it is the proper time to stop eating?

Survival and reproduction. Sensations, and pleasure specifically (but pain as well) all relate back to this.

Perhaps the word you meant is happiness . (Not the kind of materialistic "happiness" that LG and Sears promote.) How can happiness be achieved when one is suffering? What is suffering but being wrapped in scarves of illusion, spending your life wishing for what it is not possible to have?

Actually, biological and empirical evidence do not support your definition. Pleasure is a feeling brought about by the release of serotonin, dopamine and other neurotransmitters. That release can be prompted by acts that are decidedly bad for you. Like taking drugs. The release can also be prompted by acts that, while not bad for you, have no bearing on survival. Take listening to music as an example. If you enjoy a specific song, you fell a certain amount of pleasure when it is played. It uplifts you, and may put a spring in your step and a smile on your face. But it doesn't contribute to your survival.

What suffering are you talking about?

Why haven't you answered my question yet?

What question exactly? You haven't answered any of mine either.

And what occurrs after the pleasure obtained from taking drugs? (Depending on the seriousness, of course). Pain. Too much alcohol will produce a vomitorious, painful hangover. Too much cocaine will result in an overpowering addiction. Too much acid will burn holes in your brain (literally), surely a nerve-wrenching experience. Pain is a "don't do that" measure of the body.

What I meant was that the root of pleasure is to feel good, for the reasons of survival and reproduction. That is the entire reason for the sensation's existence. Because evolution is a blind (bottom-up) process, obviously other things besides that which is clearly healthy for an organism will feel pleasurable. But do not forget the other side of it, reproduction and passing on of genes. A human that has a natural pre disposition towards enjoying drugs and alcohol will firstly be found "cool" by the alpha male/female and secondly be so intoxicated their emotions and instincts will run rampant, thus increasing the chances of reproduction and the passing on of said predisposition towards enjoyment of drugs and alcohol. Of course, survival and attraction are now working against each other, but that is the natural order of evolution.

You talked about songs giving pleasure to people. I fully agree with you on that point--it barely alters chances of survival OR reproduction. That is because it is not truly pleasure alone that is achieved when listening to music. Why is it that humans naturally react more to music than any other known organisms? Because we are not only naturally predisposed towards survival and reproduction. The happiness that stems from music is truly that--happiness. Present-mindedness. Peace of mind, observance of beauty and truth--all of which have a natural affect on the human mind. In essence, every time you truly listen to any piece of music (minus the Ramones, because they royally suck ), you achieve the same enlightened state of mind that is found through meditation. (One of the reasons why the two go so well together).

Edited by - Wilde on 2/4/2005 9:25:42 PM

What are you talking about?

First you asked what is the meaning of life to which I replied it is subjective. Then you asked what the epitome of life is and I said I wasn't sure. After that you asked if you ought to seek transcendence or whatever and I said go for it. So I've actually answered quite a few of your questions. You still haven't answered mine.

Why should you search for this "epitome"? What happens when you find it?

Those two are the most important.

---

What I meant was that the root of pleasure is to feel good, for the reasons of survival and reproduction. That is the entire reason for the sensation's existence.

---

Naturalistic fallacy. Pleasure may be rooted in survival and reproduction but that does not mean that all pleasure ought to be in some way connected to those. Pleasure is an end.

Show me an example, please, of pleasure that does not correspond to what I have claimed it does. Drugs and alcohol I showed have a different use in reproduction and not in survival; music's "pleasure" is not pleasure but happiness and wonder (as is that of any art).

Ultimately, all other uses of pleasure are only tools of evolution. And in living for pleasure, you are living only for reproduction and survival and therefore an animal.

You said "go for it" about the epitome of life question, implying that one should, if one wanted to. What about you specifically? Is it important for you?

Your response to the music example was to deny my definition without any sort of argument. Listening to music that you enjoy will release "pleasure" neurotransmitters (dopamine, etc.). Ergo, it is no different from any other pleasure. Yet it does not affect reproduction or survival. How does that fit into your definition? And the drugs response just doesn't make sense. Why are people who take drugs thought of as being cool? Are they really thought of in that way? Ought they be regarded as such?

Living like an animal? Fine. Doesn't bother me one bit. Humans are animals. Special animals, certainly, but animals nonetheless.

I'm not answering any more questions until you do.

No, we are not animals for one very strong reason: we have the capacity to rise beyond living pointlessly for survival and reproduction.

Freiderich Neitzsche claims in Beyond Good and Evil that all feelings are mere chemical reactions, and therefore irrelevant; while this is undoubtably true, what Neitszche failed to recognize is the importance of it all lies in why these chemicals are released. The same applies to this--pleasure, of course, is a bodily-chemical reaction; one must therefore examine the reasons behind the chemical release. Music does not generate this same release of chemicals; there is no physical pleasure, only a psychological uplifting . This, too, is obviously caused by chemicals, but again that is irrelevant. The difference in the feelings lies in the fact that we are genetically predisposed towards having that uplifting, that calmness, that wonder occurr at the time of hearing music played--and quite admittedly, there is no reason that this should alter one's chances of survival or reproduction. So why then do we feel this sudden change in emotion?

Because hearing music puts us in touch with reality, with the present moment. It briefly centers us, letting us bask in the contrast of harshness and beauty, briefness and eternity--the Numinous. Music flows like a river, always in the present. The truth inherent in either its lyrics, notes, or rhythm is a manisfestation of the Absolute.

I'll answer your questions in the morning; right now I'm exhausted (having had birthday celebrations all day )

There is one fatal flaw in that argument however, and that is the fact that anyone who as ever owned a Dog or Cat will tell you that they have emotions too. A pet owner can tell when his pet is sad or happy by the way they are acting at any given time. Just because animals don't sit there and tell you in plain english how they feel, doesn't mean they don't feel emotion. Assuming Nieschke is correct that emotion is caused by a chemical reaction, than that would have to cement the fact that animals do in fact feel emotion.

Furthermore, the main argument for Humans being superior to is Man's propensity to form civizations and adapt, and the ability to reason. Granted adaptivity and tolerance to a wide range of climates and environments is a trait that is primarily Human, but that is purely a survival trait and can be crossed off the list. On the other hand, Man is not the only species on Earth that forms civilizations and lives together. Many canine species run in "packs", species of fish swim together in "schools", bees live in "hives", cattle travel in "herds", ants live in "colonies", and so on. These groups would have to be considered a form of civilization also. Each of these groups has a clearly defined hierarchy just as a human civilization does, albeit an alpha male, or queen bee, or whatever the case may be.

It can be said that man can reason and form language and that makes man superior, but how do you know that other species of animal don't reason and communicate with a language? If they don't reason or communicate, than how do bees know which one of a group of people threw the rock at the hive, and how do herds of cattle and schools of fish all know to go in the same direction when there is a threat? Why don't they attack everything that is nearby and why don't they all flee in every which direction? I know you are saying that man can reason better because I am typing on a computer right now and other animals don't have that, but all that proves is that man has opposable thumbs and has spent the past millions of years learning how to use them.

Deep down the meaning of life for all biological creatures is to procreate. Ever since the dawn of human civilization man has been searching for something more than this. There are areas on that side of the equation that may or may not be true, but they cannot be discussed here. For the purpose of this particular thread the answer is to follow the path of your choosing and to procreate.

Edited by - Kirghiz on 2/4/2005 11:44:56 PM

---

... what Neitszche failed to recognize is the importance of it all lies in why these chemicals are released.

---

Or, perhaps, he had it right and you're asking a question that has no answer.

---

Music does not generate this same release of chemicals

---

Yes it does. It is impossible to be happy, to feel pleasure without certain chemical realities. Impossible.

---

... there is no physical pleasure, only a psychological uplifting.

---

There is no difference between those two things, except perhaps the degree of pleasure each may provide.

---

Because hearing music puts us in touch with reality, with the present moment. It briefly centers us, letting us bask in the contrast of harshness and beauty, briefness and eternity--the Numinous. Music flows like a river, always in the present. The truth inherent in either its lyrics, notes, or rhythm is a manisfestation of the Absolute.

---

That's what I like to call waxing poetic. I like music because certain note combinations invoke certain images, images that make me happy. Other people like music because they can marvel at the talent of the composer or performer. You clearly have some romanticized notion of music which brings you pleasure.

Still, let's move away from that and tackle a diversion like videogames. Why do they make us happy? They don't help us procreate at all (if anything they hinder procreation ). They don't ensure our survival. And they certainly don't put me "in touch with the present" or anything like that. Indeed, they appear to do just the opposite. And yet the pleasure they so obviously provide is enough that the VG industry is one of the fastest growing (if not the fastest growing) industry today. How does that fit?

Kirghiz - Nice points there. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who believes in the human animal. I do disagree with your final statement, however. Something can only have purpose if a purpose is assigned to it. As I said before, the only person equipped to assign something a purpose is the user. In the case of a living organism, the user is the organism itself. If an organism never tackles the question of purpose and never makes the conscious choice to give itself one, then it does not have one. We cannot make blanket statements about the purposes of beings other than ourselves.

---

Kirghiz
For the purpose of this particular thread the answer is to follow the path of your choosing and to procreate.

---

I don't see how "Follow the path of your choosing" could be considered a blanket statement. I think we are saying a similar thing, because by following their own path they are assigning their purpose. On the other hand, by the number of relationship threads I have seen on this board, I think pretty much everyone here is at least trying to procreate, though some are more successful than others.

Edited by - Kirghiz on 2/5/2005 12:16:27 AM