It is the blind purpose to procreate, the unintentional "purpose". Essentially, Kirghiz said much of what I was trying to say.

Re: emotions in animals. That virtually is unrelated to what I was stating--I was only using Neitzsche's argument in that context as a base to argue the point with Codename about pleasure vs. happiness.

Re: "essentially the same thing". Actually, they're not. Simply ask anyone who has fallen deeply and passionately in love, and ask them if the happiness they undergo can be compared on any level with physical pleasure recieved from eating. Thetwo are not only quantitatively different, but also qualitatively (physically and psychologically). They are completely different categories whatsoever--pleasure is mere sensation , pushing towards survival or reproduction, whereas the joy of passion and love is true beauty. The joy found from hearing music, similarly (and by your own logic too) is evoked for entirely different reasons than physical pleasure found from eating a chocolate bar.

Re: Video games. They are also quantitatively different from physical pleasure. The pleasure obtained from playing these is that of escapism, which swamps the mind in images so it forgets the suffering/pain of reality.

Edited by - Wilde on 2/5/2005 11:20:29 AM

---

Re: "essentially the same thing". Actually, they're not. Simply ask anyone who has fallen deeply and passionately in love, and ask them if the happiness they undergo can be compared on any level with physical pleasure recieved from eating. Thetwo are not only quantitatively different, but also qualitatively (physically and psychologically). They are completely different categories whatsoever--pleasure is mere sensation , pushing towards survival or reproduction, whereas the joy of passion and love is true beauty. The joy found from hearing music, similarly (and by your own logic too) is evoked for entirely different reasons than physical pleasure found from eating a chocolate bar.

---

So you want to make it a definitional issue then. Okay.

Your definition: Pleasure is mere sensation, pushing towards survival or reproduction
My definition: Pleasure is a feeling brought about by the release of serotonin, dopamine and other neurotransmitters.

Your definition requires the exclusion of certain things in order to remain valid. Mine does not. Therefore mine is better. Prove yours superior or work with mine. If you don't, I cannot take your beliefs seriously.

Your example of eating vs. love is flawed in that it might as well be comparing apples and mountains. The argument you put forward is circular and self-referential too. Unless I've missed something you've said:
P1. Different stimuli bring about different sensations
P2. Different sensations are brought about by different stimuli
Therefore C. Different stimuli bring about different sensations
That's not a good argument.

Furthermore, I never once said that all pleasures are the same, or feel the same. The statement that "different stimuli can bring about different sorts of pleasure" is not incompatible with my definition. Diffeing amounts of the various neurotransmitters will cause fundamentally different feelings of generalized pleasure. To use a drug example, THC generally makes people mellow while MDMA makes people euphoric. Both feelings are caused by chemical cascades but the cascades are different and result in different sorts of feelings of pleasure. The fact remains, however, that the pleasure is still a product of certain chemical realities. The same is true for love or any other pleasure.

Firstly, I completely agree with you: pleasure is the release of chemicals into the bloodstream. But for what end? SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION. All biology and all information we can gather about evolution points to this. Why ELSE would there be such a feeling as pleasure? Chance? Darwinian theory has disproved any idea of physical existence of organisms being random. And what is the "why" of evolution? The drive to "Live Long and Prosper".

You are completely and totally misunderstanding my argument. Different stimuli bring about different sensations is NOT where it ends! You are looking at this completely from the view of the physical result; I am viewing it at what causes the release of stimuli in the first place. I am saying that physical sensation interpreted as pleasure is different from happiness found through spiritual/psychological stimulation, such as listening to music.

One can then further this argument and say that humans--and other known organisms, to a lesser extent--are naturally predisposed towards both the drive of survival and reproduction as well as the wonder of the Real. So we have two obvious life-choices: to follow survival and reproduction, and thus animalize and dehumanize ourselves, or to pursue the Real and truly find the spirit of humanity. There is no given purpose for this life, but I personally would rather find truth than let my humanity rot away.

---

Your definition: Pleasure is mere sensation, pushing towards survival or reproduction
My definition: Pleasure is a feeling brought about by the release of serotonin, dopamine and other neurotransmitters.

---

I think both of those definitions are right. Feeling and emotion are both caused by chemical reactions in your brain. However, the reason those chemical reactions are even there in the first place is to push you towards surviving and advancing your species. That is the cause of these chemical reactions. A side effect of them is the personality traits, or "likes" and "dislikes" of individual people depending on which chemical reactions they prefer to experience over others.

That actually makes quite a lot of sense. Good point.

The purpose of life can be deeply philosophical, or quite simple. And I will put it in terms young people can understand.

To all people (including me) that believe in a religious meaning of life: You may follow your beliefs as you wish, you were put by whatever god comands you or created you. Yet do not be blinded. An all out extreme thing that tells you to kill people is obviously fake, and if you have no facts or evidence for your religion than chances are it is false.

To all atheists: We came by accident. Random particles created a big bang which created a universe. We slowly evolved from animals, and have grown more and more intelligent. In an atheistic worldview, more of an atheistic philosphers world view, there is no meaning of life. There is no special thing like to server the greater good. We were created by complete accident, therefore the meaning of life is simply to live.

I deeply respect Alpha Leader for coming out and stating what he believed, and defending his beliefs. Actually I believe the same thing he does. So whoever you are or whatever you believe the meaning of life will never be found.

Now for the big Philosophical part: What you think the meaning of life is does not depend on religion alone. It depends on your worldview, behaivor, and what you've been through. If you were treated horribly are poor and aren't popular, chances are you'll think the meaning of life is to live and make the best of it.

I will compair two people, one good one extremely bad. Hitler probably thought the meaning of life was to find this master race by all means possible. He cruelly killed anyone different from him. However someone such as President Lincoln believed the meaning of life was to server his country and hold up the hand of justice against enemies.

So there you have it, my entire philosphical report on the subject, in conclusion I have found the meaning of life will never be truely known until you die. You create your own meaning of life and if it changes it changes. Good luck to the right religion or atheistic belief.

Treading on thin ice there DS, but not bad points...

About Lincoln's ideas, those ideals of patriotism and serving one's country are so easily perverted and twisted; take Chinese communism, for example. As to the Hitler reference, his entire philosophy is a hybrid belief descending from Wagner, Neitzsche, and ancient Gnosticism. The deciding factor in the result was the fact that he completely misunderstood Neitzsche's philosophy, taking the Will to Power idea out of its context and then proceeding to brutally murder 8 million people.

damn, ive missed alot in my absence from THIS thread.

ok, meaning of life...

the meaning of life, for all intents and purposes, cannot be explained by one person to another, the meaning of life is a completely subjective point of view, as one person's meaning of life will differ to the next person's meaning of life. thus, trying to define it is similar to trying to define a universal amount of hairs on the human head, or the universal number of friends that someone has, its impossible to define, because it IS defined by the person's views, and is not a universal constant.

Now, onto the difference between humans and the rest of the planet.
Indeed we do have some similarity to animals in that we do have some subconsious drive to procreate (i started a thread on this a while ago, about instinct and desire vs. logic and reason) and live a full life. that is a standard drive encompassing all animals that are not hive-minded. now, higher animals whose brain is larger than a pea most probably do experience emotion, as, our primal instincts that are classed as 'emotions' are present in animals also. what animals lack is is the capacity for higher-level emotions (compassion, love, betrayal, etc...), now as far as i can tell, there is only one other species that it has been theorised to have that capability. Dolphins. i wont go into that in any more detail, so lets skip right to my point.
The last step that seperates us from them is Sentience, or at least, my defenition of it. Sentience, in my opinion, consists of 2 things: the ability to be self aware, and the ability to be conciously aware of 'choice'

Choice. every single other species on the planet is governed by a predictable set of instructions in thier brain. the higher the organism, the more complicated the command set becomes. Dolphins, in my opinion, lack this, they are still governed by a command set, albeit a very complex one. Humans, although they have this system at a low level, ultimatley, what we do in life is what we CHOOSE to do. that is what sets us apart, it is impossible to tell what we are going to do in the end.

On the final note, in regards to fate i leave this:
If we knew where every single particle was in the universe and where they were going, we would know all of thier interactions, and thus, we would know all knowledge of past, present and future.

That would be a Socratesian idea of the "iota"? (The post sounded pretty thoughtful, BTW)

Ultimately, I disagree with the subjective argument. While what we do in life is what we choose to do, it seems to me that one cannot treat all walks of life as equal. A serial killer cannot be compared with a sage. To me, the best form of life is to transcend the faults of human nature while preserving and expanding upon its lighter side--the sage. To search for truth, to attempt to dispel illusion, to gain wisdom, morality, mercy.

But why is that better? You could say that the serial killer has a morally bad purpose, but that's not what we are talking about.

And further, if you accept that (wisdom/transcendence) as your goal, what do you do once you've achieved it? Does that sort of life become a goal or end in itself? If so, why? If not, what do you do then?

You could perhaps say that it is an unreachable goal but then you doom yourself to a life of failure. That's not a very attractive prospect, is it?

Edited by - Codename on 2/5/2005 5:19:54 PM

Your concern is a very common one; but let us examine it.

What, ultimately, is the point of all this? True happiness. Not brief physical sensations or drug intoxication, not momentary ecstacy, but real, pure happiness. That is what the goal of wisdom and transcendence is about--transcending illusion and self-perpetuating craving, which lead to suffering. Cultivating wisdom, so we can know ourselves and by extension "plunge into the totality of the Real " (Plotinus), thus finding wonder, beauty, and joy. And pass that on to our Comrades and children--in essence, spreading the seeds of happiness in the highest form throughout the world.

So it's all about getting happy and proselytization?

Happiness is a much overused word in modern society; one of the reasons I detest it. Try to think of it as it is in its highest form--wonder, awe, peacefulness of mind...

I essentially mean the state of mind achieved in meditation.

Bliss?

It seems to me you've deified transcendence though. In essence your statements seem to amount to:
"Without transcendence you cannot know peace."
"Accepting transcendence will make you happy."
"Transcendence requires you to give up physical pleasure."
"Guide people towards the path of transcendence."
... and things of that sort. Replace "transcendence with "god" and you have something that very closely mirrors standard Western religion.