Please tell me why
August 2, 2009 4:44 AM Subscribe
how do any of you take this seriously?
All philosophical debates on the meaning of life I can conceive of end up with: A. noone knows what is going on. B: the only motivation a person can count on is to make it the best experience they can have while they are having it. This would rationally lead to choosing to act in life (affording free will) completely narscisitically, to be as happy as you can be. So what drives you to the choices you make. What motivates you? What motivates yours decisions? If you can't prove that you exist, why do you try?
All philosophical debates on the meaning of life I can conceive of end up with: A. noone knows what is going on. B: the only motivation a person can count on is to make it the best experience they can have while they are having it. This would rationally lead to choosing to act in life (affording free will) completely narscisitically, to be as happy as you can be. So what drives you to the choices you make. What motivates you? What motivates yours decisions? If you can't prove that you exist, why do you try?
This post was deleted for the following reason: chatfilter -- jessamyn
I agree with this premise:
the only motivation a person can count on is to make it the best experience they can have while they are having it
But I disagree with this conclusion:
This would rationally lead to choosing to act in life completely narscisitically
Sheer experience shows that some of the best experiences in life come from doing good things for other people, or striving to do great works in general. Even if those other people turn out to be illusory, you still get a great personal experience out of it. The simple practicality of the situation we (apparently) find ourselves in leads to a life led ignoring all others being the genuine futility.
posted by chrismear at 4:58 AM on August 2, 2009
the only motivation a person can count on is to make it the best experience they can have while they are having it
But I disagree with this conclusion:
This would rationally lead to choosing to act in life completely narscisitically
Sheer experience shows that some of the best experiences in life come from doing good things for other people, or striving to do great works in general. Even if those other people turn out to be illusory, you still get a great personal experience out of it. The simple practicality of the situation we (apparently) find ourselves in leads to a life led ignoring all others being the genuine futility.
posted by chrismear at 4:58 AM on August 2, 2009
keame, I wish your question was worded better. It seems that you are asking us to accept your assumption ("rationally lead to choosing to act in life completely narscisitically"). But then, you ask, what drives people to make choices. Based on the assumption you asked us to accept, the answer would be narcissism. But then, you end it with asking us to accept another assumption (we can't prove that we exist), and question why we would try (to do anything?)
What, exactly, are you getting at?
posted by Houstonian at 5:04 AM on August 2, 2009
What, exactly, are you getting at?
posted by Houstonian at 5:04 AM on August 2, 2009
A. No one can tell you what's going on in a way that makes any sense to you.
B. By "motivation" do you mean "strategy?" Is "best" something measured linearly? Are all experiences comparable? And why chose best now as opposed to better later?
My experience is that narcissistic people aren't particularly happy. I think you should have that chat with mattoxic.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:09 AM on August 2, 2009
B. By "motivation" do you mean "strategy?" Is "best" something measured linearly? Are all experiences comparable? And why chose best now as opposed to better later?
My experience is that narcissistic people aren't particularly happy. I think you should have that chat with mattoxic.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:09 AM on August 2, 2009
I certainly can prove that I exist. Cogito ergo sum.
I can also show that your argument is invalid. There's not much reason to believe that hedonism, let alone selfish hedonism, is the best way to live your life. You need to separate what you consider to be good from what is right.
Here's a counterexample to your conflation of the two concepts: I lie to my wife so that I can continue to have an affair with my mistress. I'm happy with this arrangement--until my wife finds out. Then I regret my lies and my affair, and I feel tremendous guilt about it all. If I only sought to rationally maximize my own happiness, I wouldn't feel guilt in this situation, or any other situation, because guilt is, in a sense, crying over spilt milk.
Regret is highly unpleasant. So it seems to be irrational, if your argument is correct. But, of course, we all regret things from time to time, and at least sometimes we don't think we're being irrational when we do. Instead, we believe our regret to be justified; it's right to feel the way we do. This being the case, either we're wrong, and regret is always unjustified (but this is implausible), or our conceptions of what is good for us and what is right are different, though probably related, things.
Figuring out what's good and what's right is the project of your life. You learn this by living it
posted by smorange at 5:37 AM on August 2, 2009
I can also show that your argument is invalid. There's not much reason to believe that hedonism, let alone selfish hedonism, is the best way to live your life. You need to separate what you consider to be good from what is right.
Here's a counterexample to your conflation of the two concepts: I lie to my wife so that I can continue to have an affair with my mistress. I'm happy with this arrangement--until my wife finds out. Then I regret my lies and my affair, and I feel tremendous guilt about it all. If I only sought to rationally maximize my own happiness, I wouldn't feel guilt in this situation, or any other situation, because guilt is, in a sense, crying over spilt milk.
Regret is highly unpleasant. So it seems to be irrational, if your argument is correct. But, of course, we all regret things from time to time, and at least sometimes we don't think we're being irrational when we do. Instead, we believe our regret to be justified; it's right to feel the way we do. This being the case, either we're wrong, and regret is always unjustified (but this is implausible), or our conceptions of what is good for us and what is right are different, though probably related, things.
Figuring out what's good and what's right is the project of your life. You learn this by living it
posted by smorange at 5:37 AM on August 2, 2009
why do you try?
The alternative (and eventuality) is nothingness and nothingness is just not. I'd rather, at the very least, live within the inexplicable semblance of being than be naught or not.
And while you're here, try the fish. What else are you going to do?*
mind you, I'm at the tail end of a year's long existential crisis that's winding up with, "I'm here. Not all questions are answerable, so I'll construct something personal that may or may not make sense in the moment. It can and will change, sometimes several times a day. In the end, eternal life is in the memory of others, so live well and be remembered and you'll never be not.
posted by Cat Pie Hurts at 5:37 AM on August 2, 2009
The alternative (and eventuality) is nothingness and nothingness is just not. I'd rather, at the very least, live within the inexplicable semblance of being than be naught or not.
And while you're here, try the fish. What else are you going to do?*
mind you, I'm at the tail end of a year's long existential crisis that's winding up with, "I'm here. Not all questions are answerable, so I'll construct something personal that may or may not make sense in the moment. It can and will change, sometimes several times a day. In the end, eternal life is in the memory of others, so live well and be remembered and you'll never be not.
posted by Cat Pie Hurts at 5:37 AM on August 2, 2009
A. noone knows what is going on. B: the only motivation a person can count on is to make it the best experience they can have while they are having it.
There actually might be something that we could all agree on: we are all made of star stuff, and that is what we have in common with people, animals, nature in general. The best experience in this case would be seeing the star stuff in the other, realizing the basic unity, and acting accordingly with love and respect for the other.
It usually takes a few serious knocks from life to get away from the egocentrism.
posted by francesca too at 5:39 AM on August 2, 2009
There actually might be something that we could all agree on: we are all made of star stuff, and that is what we have in common with people, animals, nature in general. The best experience in this case would be seeing the star stuff in the other, realizing the basic unity, and acting accordingly with love and respect for the other.
It usually takes a few serious knocks from life to get away from the egocentrism.
posted by francesca too at 5:39 AM on August 2, 2009
When you get very old you are probably going to have an outlook much different from what you now believe or what you are told by others your age.
ps: for the comment above. See King Lear. He told his daughter that nothing can come of nothing. But implied, god created the world from nothingness....or, evolutionary thinkers
indicated a primal soup that exploded and created Home Depot, finally.
posted by Postroad at 5:43 AM on August 2, 2009
ps: for the comment above. See King Lear. He told his daughter that nothing can come of nothing. But implied, god created the world from nothingness....or, evolutionary thinkers
indicated a primal soup that exploded and created Home Depot, finally.
posted by Postroad at 5:43 AM on August 2, 2009
This would rationally lead to choosing to act in life (affording free will) completely narscisitically...
Sure, along with a whole bunch of people who act the same, until another bunch of people who are told by a god or figure out for themselves that getting together in a cohesive group and sacrificing some self-interest will keep them alive longer and/or get them a cozy place in the afterlife. When the war is over, whose genes get passed on?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 5:51 AM on August 2, 2009
Sure, along with a whole bunch of people who act the same, until another bunch of people who are told by a god or figure out for themselves that getting together in a cohesive group and sacrificing some self-interest will keep them alive longer and/or get them a cozy place in the afterlife. When the war is over, whose genes get passed on?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 5:51 AM on August 2, 2009
Just remember your favorite teacher from grade school.
Why did that person come every day to stand before you?
posted by at the crossroads at 6:06 AM on August 2, 2009
Why did that person come every day to stand before you?
posted by at the crossroads at 6:06 AM on August 2, 2009
When I was 21 (half my life ago) I thought hedonism was the most rational lifestyle. Then I had babies (direct consequence of some hedonism) and my ideas changed. I felt a responsibility toward these new lives, and I felt a unique satisfaction meeting that responsibility. Sometimes that which seems rational is only rational for the person you are in that moment.
Also, I don't need to prove I exist. What indeed is the point of that? Whether or not I do exist, my experiences are such that I can assume I do, and therefore drop that little existential angsty question right by the wayside. It's no longer important to me.
No-one knows what's going on? Well, maybe not philosophically, but I don't particularly care about that. There's someone who can explain why my computer seizes, and what bird is that, and how much food I should eat in order to achieve this kind of weight loss. These are the practical pragmatic questions that are more important to me.
Good luck. If you get older, you might change your viewpoint.
posted by b33j at 6:09 AM on August 2, 2009
Also, I don't need to prove I exist. What indeed is the point of that? Whether or not I do exist, my experiences are such that I can assume I do, and therefore drop that little existential angsty question right by the wayside. It's no longer important to me.
No-one knows what's going on? Well, maybe not philosophically, but I don't particularly care about that. There's someone who can explain why my computer seizes, and what bird is that, and how much food I should eat in order to achieve this kind of weight loss. These are the practical pragmatic questions that are more important to me.
Good luck. If you get older, you might change your viewpoint.
posted by b33j at 6:09 AM on August 2, 2009
IMHO, knowledge of the "meaning of life" comes from living it, not debating it. I have no idea what the philosophical debates for the meaning of life are, and frankly I don't care because I can't imagine a scenario where they would have a day-to-day impact on my life.
What taught me the "meaning of life" was waking up every morning at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, trading chores with my husband between feeding the baby, preparing her IV medicine and getting her dressed/packed for a day of chemo. Working all day in our apartment, wishing I was at the hospital with her. Working all day and spending nights in the hospital, holding my daughter in my arms and ballet dancing to the Sleeping Beauty theme. I learned the meaning of life when her cancer came back, even though she was only 9 months old and NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG. I learned the meaning of life when she died, and the only effing thing that gave my life meaning was GONE. And then I learned to construct new meaning in life from the lessons she taught me, to build my own hopes and love, and to show the kind of patience and natural joy she did. And despite my grief, otherwise I am happier now, less than 6 months after my daughter's death, than I've ever been.
No offense to all those learned and prolific philosophers, but quit reading and start living. A hundred "selfish" choices could have been made - but not a single one of them would have made me happy. Maturity (from experience etc., not age) is knowing your own interest even in unpleasant-sounding actions.
posted by bunnycup at 6:15 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
What taught me the "meaning of life" was waking up every morning at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, trading chores with my husband between feeding the baby, preparing her IV medicine and getting her dressed/packed for a day of chemo. Working all day in our apartment, wishing I was at the hospital with her. Working all day and spending nights in the hospital, holding my daughter in my arms and ballet dancing to the Sleeping Beauty theme. I learned the meaning of life when her cancer came back, even though she was only 9 months old and NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG. I learned the meaning of life when she died, and the only effing thing that gave my life meaning was GONE. And then I learned to construct new meaning in life from the lessons she taught me, to build my own hopes and love, and to show the kind of patience and natural joy she did. And despite my grief, otherwise I am happier now, less than 6 months after my daughter's death, than I've ever been.
No offense to all those learned and prolific philosophers, but quit reading and start living. A hundred "selfish" choices could have been made - but not a single one of them would have made me happy. Maturity (from experience etc., not age) is knowing your own interest even in unpleasant-sounding actions.
posted by bunnycup at 6:15 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
For it is not right that one should set in competition to the rational and social good anything at all that is foreign to its nature, such as praise from the crowd, position, or wealth, or sensual pleasure. All of these, even if they seem to suit our nature in the short term, suddenly seize control of us and carry us away. For your part, I say, you must in all simplicity and freedom choose what is higher and hold to that - 'But the higher is that which brings me benefit.' - Well, if it benefits you as a rational creature, keep a firm hold on it; but if it benefits you merely as an animal, acknowledge it, and maintain your judgment without arrogance, only taking care that your examination is conducted on a secure basis. - Marcus Aurelius
posted by Comrade_robot at 6:26 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by Comrade_robot at 6:26 AM on August 2, 2009
A. noone knows what is going on.
This is very vague, and many people would strongly disagree, so you'd need to explain this more fully if you want it to be the premise of a philosophical argument.
B: the only motivation a person can count on is to make it the best experience they can have while they are having it. This would rationally lead to choosing to act in life (affording free will) completely narscisitically, to be as happy as you can be.
There are many flaws with this:
(1) Being motivated only by the quality of your experiences in the here-and-now would be a terrible idea, since this would cause you to screw up your future.
(2) You're assuming narcissism or solipsism. I don't understand -- why don't you think other people matter?
(3) I don't know what "best experience" means. Part of figuring out the meaning of life might very well involve figuring out what the "best experiences" are, so it's too facile to talk about that as if there's any agreement on what it means. Are you assuming hedonism? Does "best experience" include philosophical understanding? scientific progress? a connection with God? making a lot of money? conquering nations? etc. None of those things are directly about "happiness," but they're things that drive a lot of people. Are those people being irrational? Maybe so, maybe not. You'd need to get more specific about which experiences are worthwhile and which aren't.
If you can't prove that you exist, why do you try?
As others have correctly pointed out, this is doubly flawed:
(1) You can prove you exist. For instance, go look in the mirror -- there you are! Also, you need to exist in order to ask this question.
(2) Even if you think these arguments, and all others, are unconvincing about whether you exist, that still wouldn't mean that life would be meaningless or you'd have no motivation. If there's, say, a 50% chance that nothing matters and a 50% chance that it does, then the rational course of action is to behave as if it does. After all (as Thomas Nagel argues in his essay "The Absurd" in the book Mortal Questions, which I recommend), if nothing in your life matters, then that fact doesn't matter either -- in which case, you should just keep on living.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:28 AM on August 2, 2009
This is very vague, and many people would strongly disagree, so you'd need to explain this more fully if you want it to be the premise of a philosophical argument.
B: the only motivation a person can count on is to make it the best experience they can have while they are having it. This would rationally lead to choosing to act in life (affording free will) completely narscisitically, to be as happy as you can be.
There are many flaws with this:
(1) Being motivated only by the quality of your experiences in the here-and-now would be a terrible idea, since this would cause you to screw up your future.
(2) You're assuming narcissism or solipsism. I don't understand -- why don't you think other people matter?
(3) I don't know what "best experience" means. Part of figuring out the meaning of life might very well involve figuring out what the "best experiences" are, so it's too facile to talk about that as if there's any agreement on what it means. Are you assuming hedonism? Does "best experience" include philosophical understanding? scientific progress? a connection with God? making a lot of money? conquering nations? etc. None of those things are directly about "happiness," but they're things that drive a lot of people. Are those people being irrational? Maybe so, maybe not. You'd need to get more specific about which experiences are worthwhile and which aren't.
If you can't prove that you exist, why do you try?
As others have correctly pointed out, this is doubly flawed:
(1) You can prove you exist. For instance, go look in the mirror -- there you are! Also, you need to exist in order to ask this question.
(2) Even if you think these arguments, and all others, are unconvincing about whether you exist, that still wouldn't mean that life would be meaningless or you'd have no motivation. If there's, say, a 50% chance that nothing matters and a 50% chance that it does, then the rational course of action is to behave as if it does. After all (as Thomas Nagel argues in his essay "The Absurd" in the book Mortal Questions, which I recommend), if nothing in your life matters, then that fact doesn't matter either -- in which case, you should just keep on living.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:28 AM on August 2, 2009
Even though one may have difficulty understanding it, there may still be something greater than ourselves that determines meaning beyond our own narcissism. It might not be reason enough to change your rational argument, but it may be cause for the good feelings we get when we act outside of ourselves, e.g. some good responses above.
posted by monkeymadness at 6:30 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by monkeymadness at 6:30 AM on August 2, 2009
The most important thing to you is yourself, and it's certainly the only thing you have any real degree of control over. So you should aim to make yourself the best person you can (which may involve being happy, but happiness isn't the essence of it). I don't mean this only in a simple moral sense, I mean you should aspire to transcend yourself and gradually become more yourself, and a better kind of self, than your old self could have conceived of. If you succeed, you may eventually work out what the goal you were actually working towards, the one you couldn't grasp to begin with, really was; but you'll have been going in the right direction anyway.
If that's too vague and pretentious, the best I can say is: while you're trying to be happy, try to be nice to the rest of us too.
posted by Phanx at 6:32 AM on August 2, 2009
If that's too vague and pretentious, the best I can say is: while you're trying to be happy, try to be nice to the rest of us too.
posted by Phanx at 6:32 AM on August 2, 2009
B: the only motivation a person can count on is to make it the best experience they can have while they are having it.
B: the only motivation a person can count on is to be as happy as they can.
If you only shoot for experiences you'll probably miss a lot of the basic and well required needs to be happy and are thus, wasting your time. That includes many things that make you unhappy in the short term and putting aside good experiences for better all round mood.
Ultimately you'll only stop searching for an answer to the question "Why are we here" when you find an answer that makes you happy. So if you take control of this question, it represents a choice between happiness and continued searching/assumed unhappiness.
Purpose and/or meaning is a human concept at the end of the day and isn't answerable in a Rule-of-Natural-Physics-Law-God-Says kind of way. If you're asking the questions you did in the original post, they're probably a manifestation of something else that's lacking in your life. Purely in my opinion, from this side of the internet, they didn't seem fleshed out enough to be honest intellectual questions. Find an answer to what's lacking and execute it, then come back and see if you still are worried about the meaning of life. Imo.
posted by Submiqent at 6:40 AM on August 2, 2009
B: the only motivation a person can count on is to be as happy as they can.
If you only shoot for experiences you'll probably miss a lot of the basic and well required needs to be happy and are thus, wasting your time. That includes many things that make you unhappy in the short term and putting aside good experiences for better all round mood.
Ultimately you'll only stop searching for an answer to the question "Why are we here" when you find an answer that makes you happy. So if you take control of this question, it represents a choice between happiness and continued searching/assumed unhappiness.
Purpose and/or meaning is a human concept at the end of the day and isn't answerable in a Rule-of-Natural-Physics-Law-God-Says kind of way. If you're asking the questions you did in the original post, they're probably a manifestation of something else that's lacking in your life. Purely in my opinion, from this side of the internet, they didn't seem fleshed out enough to be honest intellectual questions. Find an answer to what's lacking and execute it, then come back and see if you still are worried about the meaning of life. Imo.
posted by Submiqent at 6:40 AM on August 2, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by mattoxic at 4:56 AM on August 2, 2009