I’d say that the meaning of life is a mystery for the individual to figure out. Different for everyone.

Life, noun: the state of being that separates living things such as plants and animals from dead or inorganic matter.

Heheh, I always like replying with that whenever asked this question. Onto the seriousness!

I don’t believe life is meaningless, but rather it isn’t here for any reason. It just “is”; it emerged from proteins and whatnot back when our planet was just a big, freshly bubbling stew of primordial ooze. By chance. And surely, if life and this world occurred by chance, that makes it even more beautiful than if something—whether conscious or not—set it all in motion? ‘Sides that, beauty is both fleeting and subjective; although, I guess pretty much everything in this world is fleeting and subjective. Anyways.

Being as we are (we meaning humans), it seems against our very innate nature to decide we have or want no meaning in this world. I suppose if I died tomorrow, I’d have had no real impact in the world aside from those who know me personally. But there are things I still want to do and places I want to go to, and by doing those things, I will in turn affect other people.

What is the meaning of life?
To me, just being in living state, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to have meaning. If we want meaning, we have to make it ourselves.

What you have written does remind me of something I myself wrote a while ago—all based on The Circle of Life, since I’m a total sucker for The Lion King, heheh. I didn’t show it to anyway as it was for my own amusement and to get the ideas down into text. I’m not sure if I still have it, but it was something along the lines of:

A person will be influenced or inspired by other people—family, friends, strangers, authors, actors, teachers, musicians, athletes—and will then go on to inspire others themselves. Those they inspire will inspire others further; even long after that original person is dead. And whether or not their name preserves over the course of time or there really is or isn’t an afterlife, they will still continue affecting other people years after they’re gone.

And, when concerning the material, our bodies decompose and return to the Earth, which then allows plants to grow and whatnot. You know; Circle of Life. But it doesn’t stop at animals and plants. When our planet dies—or our star, or even our galaxy—those materials that composed every one of us will remain. Maybe they’ll even be scattered across space and become part of a new, distant world, and we’ll all become part of new circle, as it were, even though we all died millions or billions of years ago.

There may have been more to it, but I can’t quite remember. All in all, it’s a very refreshing take on the subject—energy is, after all, eternal. Maybe all things, which are essentially composed of energy, are the same way if not in a conventional way, or in a way that humans can understand.

There’s something I really don’t get about modern society. Supposedly, truth is subjective, but I strongly think it’s not.

Let’s imagine I throw a banana peel on the floor and then proceed to step on it and fall. “Subjective truth” states that some may think I was trying to commit suicide (and that’s their truth), while some others might think I was trying to kill someone with that fuity weapon (and that’s their truth), and yet some others might think I was trying to be funny (and that’s their truth); many points of view and conditions, meaning many truths.

Well, that’s sound nice, but there’s a catch. Truth is a “verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like”, “actuality or actual existence” (according to the dictionary). This means that truth does not depend on us, but on reality. So, even if everyone has a different interpretation and has different opinions, the FACT is that “I threw a banana peel on the floor and purposely stepped on it and fell to illustrate an example”. I was not trying to commit suicide nor murder, nor I was trying to be funny. That’s it, there is opne single absolute truth, despite the fact that everyone might have diffetent opinions. They do not KNOW the truth, but their interpretation is not true just because they have a different data orlack the necessary information to certify or understand the truth.

Truth is true, and there may NOT exist many “truths”. What happens is that we do not posses the necessary data to either know or certify truth is true. There is no such thing as “subjective truth”, that’s just a convenient concept to justify our informational void.

Same goes for Right and Wrong. Someone might think something is right while it is wrong for everyone else.

Let’s take the typical case of murderes who think they are right because they had terrible pasts or whatever. They may think they are right, but it is actually not AND it is NOT wrong just because it is for everyone else, but because it is harmful and destructive. We all have a concience, and deep down we all know what is right and wrong, but we chose to ingore it.

Now, the fact that such person thinks he/she is right SPARES him/her from the guiltiness of ignoring what their concience told them; that’s what happens with kids, they do something wrong while ignoring the fact that it was wrong, but that does not change the nature of the act. That is called innocence, and a lack of information and the distortion of it provides us with innocence, though once we get it rightm it would be wrong to ignore such truth (once we’ve understood it of course).

Then, what about subjective morality and ethics? Well, it is quite convenint to label something as right just because it is conveninet, and something wrong because it is not, but that does not change the nature of the act, even if the data one posses states it is. WE are the ones who are subjective, not reality.

That takes me to think we all have ONE, TRUE and UNIQUE purpose, which is different for everyone, but collectively the same, and by knowing that individual purpose, the collective one becomes evident.

Personally, I haven’t figured it out yet, after all I’m just 18, but I certainly someday get such purpose from God himself. Will you?

I don’t think there is a right and wrong; in fact, I’m pretty set-in-stone certain there is no such thing as good or evil. Because, well, it IS all subjective. What about societies that kill girls who are raped because they have apparently disgraced their family? What about societies that sacrifice other humans—sometimes their of own kind, sometimes not, and sometimes against the sacrifice’s will, sometimes with their consent? What about the religious crusaders who, throughout the ages, have killed people of other faiths, or of faithlessness or of a different heritage just because they’re “not like us”?

These people do these things because they believe it IS the right thing to do. They have no guilt doing these things because, well, why should they? They did the RIGHT thing. If anything, they have no remorse and instead they probably take utmost delight and pride in their acts.

But then throw someone in from some completely different time period or society, and they might turn white as a sheet at the mere prospect of how these people live their lives. What is the ‘truth’ in this situation? Can you really dismiss the beliefs of entire cultures and sometimes countries as being false just because you, personally, disagree with them?

Concerning reality—the laws of nature and science and whunnut—I believe there is an “absolute truth”, but when concerning ethics… there isn’t. Ethics are a product of human society and mentality, and nothing else. They are a fabricated and fickle truth. Imagine a child who is abandoned and then raised by animals; and yes, this does happen. These children won’t know how to act like most other humans, let alone the differences between “right” and “wrong”.

If you knew someone was going to kill a thousand people today, would you kill them? If you did, and you told the authorities what that person was going to do, would they believe you? Or would they just blindly label you as evil and throw you into prison? And if you didn’t, would you feel guilty knowing you could have prevented those one thousand people from dying? Or would you not feel guilty, since you felt it wasn’t up to you to make the decision?

I really enjoy reading your writings, but the colors are very dark for my eyes. Could you lighten it up a bit so I can indulge more, please?

I bealive that, for example, killing based on beliefs because the subject thinks he/she is right, doesn’t make it right. It DOES free them from guilt, since they didn’t do it out of malice, but the act itself is wrong because it’s destructive. Now, crusaders for example: they killed lots of people for being different, they “fought for God” but, it is destructive, so it’s wrong. They did the right thing according to them, but the act itself is wrong. They are free from guilt, but the act is still wrong. What one thinks changes guilt, but not the nature of the deed. Now, guilt does no equal remorse. I’m not talking about feeling bad (feeling guilty), I’m talking about bearing the act’s nature, like “legal” guilt, just to name it somehow.

Now, about killing a potential genocidal threat, it would still be wrong to kill him/her, because it’s destructive. That’s what the crusaders did, killing for a greater good, but that is wrong anyway. One would indeed save countless people, but would bear the guilt of killing a person. I think that’s probably the reason we can’t (at least naturally) know the future; past and present are complicated enough to deal with what’s to come. Remorse (feeling bad) and innocence depend on us, our past and thoughts, but guilt (bearing the deed’s nature) does not depend on us. Islamic murderers might be innocent and guilty at the same time. They did the right thing for them, but the deed was wrong anyway.

About the existence of an infinite, boundless being, I bealive it is true. We just have to look around us and ourselves. Think it, can carbs synthesize and disintegrate by themselves out of chance? Is DNA transfered just because of randomness? Can simple electronic waves create such a complex and immortal thing as an emotion? I won’t speak about religion or about what this being would be.

Now, about being able to choose, well, it would indeed seem nasty to manipulate things so that if we do not follow it, such being will obliterate us, but let’s change roles. If I made a civilization in my lab and I give it everything, and it turns their back on me, well, the hell with them! It’s obvious my creations are MEANT to follow me. That increases the feeling of just how insignificant we humans are, but we do have a major role since that being created us for some purpose. We screwed that purpose, but it is supposed to someday be restored, only then we would be able to know why were we created in the first place.

We do have free will, but if my creations decided I was, say, green, when they were the ones who gave birth to greeness and I am not at all green, then it is obvious for me to think those creations can take their greeness and do what they want with it! We are creations, and as creations we are meant to act as such. Our purpose is not yet clear, and it will not be revealed in life since we are meant to exist in eternity.

Now, if the existence of such a being was not true and we are just a product of casuality, then, what are emotions? Is love just sexual attraction? Is hatred a product of nature? Saying that chaos has the ability to create structures is like saying that if we put ink bottles and paper, and blow it with dynamite, the result would be a beautiful piece of poetry. Chaos is just that, chaos. It cannot spawn order, just more chaos. Order is the only thing that can create structures, order. Order spawns order, and order needs a source. Despite of what’s the source, it’s existence is quite evident.

But an act being destructive doesn’t make it evil or wrong. Besides, who are you to say that the act is ‘wrong’ or ‘right’? Who is anyone to decide this for other people? And just because an act is destructive, that doesn’t make it evil; nor does a productive action always mean it’s the ‘good’ or ‘right’ thing to do.

Onto your second point—I fail to see how that conclusion can be drawn. Just because we do not necessarily understand how some factors of the universe work, that doesn’t mean it’s completely beyond our ken. Besides that, I’m sure some physicists have the answers to some of those questions. As for emotions, I can take a guess at that and say they evolved over countless generations. Humans are hugely social animals, as well as most other apes, so developing emotions that respond to certain situations and stimuli help ensure survival of both the individual and the species as a whole. It’s not just electric signals either—hormones and other coporeal chemicals have a huge impact on what people feel and think. Love builds strong ties between members of packs or tribes. Disgust allows an individual to assert whether certain foods are good or bad and can avoid those that will make it ill. Fear ensures an individual knows if something will endanger its wellbeing or the wellbeing of follow tribe members, such as a predator. And if necessary, the organism will develop more emotions to correspond with the complexity of its species mind.

And concerning the lab idea: what about children? Should they aspire to do everything their creator does? Their job, their beliefs, their status in society? And don’t say it’s not the same thing—because it is. Both a child and a civilisation in a Petri dish are both lives that can eventually become independent from the parent creator. The only different is how you go about creating them, but that has no bearing as to how you should treat the creation. Imagine having a child solely so they can be a violinist. Even if you try gearing them towards that end goal, the child may not necessarily want to become a violinist—there is no one to blame, but as the creator of that organism, you should not expect it to totally obey you.

As far as I’m concerned, my only creators are my parents, and I won’t ever agree with or obey them fully. If there was some other “creator”, I wouldn’t care what they had intended to do with me, since I’m going to run my own life and do the things I desire to do. Plus, where is the proof of this so-called creator? Just because you, personally, do not understand how the universe or the human brain works, that doesn’t mean that nobody does understand, or that humans can never understand how these things work. If the creator wanted its creations to do exactly what it wanted, it’s done a terrible job.

Well, blowing up ink and paper with dynamite probably won’t. But the universe doesn’t work in nearly as a random and frantic a matter as that—it DOES have laws. Elements react to one another in different ways. Energy, as well as matter, both come in different forms, and are restricted by what they can do to the environment/other substances in those different states. After reacting with each other, over a long period of time, it’s certainly very possible—especially within the infinite expanse of the universe—that they can bring about life. These different elements and types of energy clashing and bombarding each other could be considered chaos—but it’s chaos with defined laws.

I think you got it correct but not fully correct.  Energy, it’s accumulation and management in whatever form you decide, (oil, gas, energy put into products and services, money, as in unused net energy, physical energy, and intellectual energy, etc) is all governed by laws of thermodynamics.  It is the reason for any endeavor followed by mankind.

Ted

In any case, laws must be created. Why the hell does gravity attracts? I know the scientific jargon, but why does that happen? Is it a product of casuality? Why do electrons spin around the nucleus? Why does heat transfers to where there is no heat? Why does light travel straightly and not spreadingly? I’m not asking how, I’m asking why.

On another hand, I didn’t say “nobody understands chaos”. Chaos is umpredictable. It may be understandable, but not predictable. There is a difference between chaotic things and chaos itself. Chaotic stuff might be predictable if all the factors and variables are bypassed, but chaos is completely umpredictable.

By saying that, I state again that chaos cannot spawn order. Order cannot possibly come from chaos. Human body, as well as nature, works like a clock. It is refinely designed. Everything within the body has a meaning and it never fails, does it? It cannot be a product of disorder since it is completely ordered.

Now about the lab stuff, I didn’t say the creator simply wanted the creation to do something just because he wants to. If I had a child and forced him into being a violinist, that would just be to feed my failures or whatever. He does it for love. That’s the difference between a sheer-cold scientist and the creator. In any case, we cannot possibly explain him. He fully understands us, but can a creation really understand his creator if they are different? Children come to understand parents since they both are the same kind, but if I engineered a species, it would never be able to undesrant me if I don’t explain myself. Now, God does explain himself through the bible, his “science report”, but most people don’t care.

I have dealed with both sheer science and trying to learn about the creator, and I can tell that judging the creator by the way He explains himself is better than judging him with logic, since logic does not deal with emotions.

I have been struggling with an internal quest, searching through my own soul trying to find the answers to two of the most troublesome questions for me: what is the purpose of life and does true love exist. It is through this search that I came across your site and I was surprised by the questions and thoughts you have raised as many have crossed my own mind but I have been reluctant to openly express them myself. So I’d like to say thanks for creating a place where I feel free to let go.

My thoughts - I think that love is the meaning to life. The two go hand in hand. I know what it is to love as I have beautiful daughter and there is no feeling the same. But it is true love I am on the search for. I am 28 yrs. old and have been with my daughter’s father since I was 18 and he was 39. I remember feeling excited and nervous in those early months too. But can I recall the feelings you expressed feeling at the age of 15 towards Melissa? No. I know that I love him but it is knowing that I would want a deeper love offered to my daughter from her partner that I know it is not true love. It is in realizing this that I started to wonder about the purpose of life. Should I continue living a life in which I believe I am not living to its full potential? Or is what I feel towards him and he towards I the way it becomes for everyone after time? I do not know. I do know that I have never met anybody that is in true love. So it is here that I am stuck. Is there a true everlasting love? Is it worth searching for and possibly destroying the only true love my daughter will ever feel?

I think this might help you understand the purpose of your life more.

http://orgs.unt.edu/christianstudents/tracts/mystery.html

I hope this helps.