I'm coming undone -. [And I'd be surprised if you took the time to read this]

[floutingadore]

It is our greatest fear that death will take from us all that we had. With that, humans relied on religion, to explain life and to explain after life (I'm not implying that religion is untrue at all), to allay our fears. With that [fear] humans found the most intense feeling of all - to be loved, which beckons at chance to create life, to somehow

Comments

[xenikos]

But then, what kind of meaning can we aspire to, what kind of meaning can we hope for, when we wait for it to be handed to us from above? Is this not just the repition of the mistake, of the crutch, of religion? And yet, to ever believe that that meaning has been achieved is equally a mistake. Thus, in lieu of falling into this dichotomy, the other option is to locate the meaning that which guides our lives (and you are right that the will-to-life is much more than the will-to-existence)in the process of the creation of meaning. This is close to the wait, the anticipation of meaning, and yet the closest distances are seperated by the largest gaps...

[anonymous]

Spending so much energy trying to find meaning isn't neccesary. Define your paradigm, and keep it until it's wrong. If you try to do something else, you'll fail at it and only feel more confused.

I chose the paradigm that we're all sentient because it's convienant for our cells, that which chose to band together into complex life for the sake of survival, that we feel and think to survive. It works good. There's more than 6 billion people out there, meaning 6 billion X 100 trillion cells.

And yet I still choose to continue a fatalist behavior of love. We're given a choice, and I make the wrong one continually because it *isn't* the best one, isn't what I should do to spread the species and to satisfy the cells.

As I see it, we're given the choice to either care, or to simply start fucking everyone to have as many kids as possible until everyone dies from overpopulation. Simplified.
---
~A

[xenikos]

"Spending so much energy trying to find meaning isn't neccesary"

It isn't necessary, and that's precisely why there is so much value in it.

Re:

[floutingadore]

Love, my dear Adrian, is another tale. Love is not a parallel to any paradigm - it does not apply to the natural laws of nature. [In other words, what 'should' be, on the basis that our existance is not a random occurence but instead, governed by strict laws]

Say the meaning of life has absoloutely no interrelationship with analytical reasoning [supplied by the data provided not to bring meaning to life, but to explain how life eventuated] than how should we go about classifying it?

In theory, I suppose it is utterly left to each of us [as individuals] to not only decide our own fate, but to consummate it in a way found acceptable to the standards of our human race. But from there, one might only enkindle the supposition that fate is a mere figment; a crutch - similar to religion.

There are those, like myself, who refuse to unpretentiously go about longevity - simply.. there. If we are birthed to breathe, reproduce, and expire - yet, given dexterity to question why, than I am confounded on this paradox [based on a invalid deduction

In reply to xenikos [for my reply link seems to be disabled]

[floutingadore]

You make a very unerring point.

So perhaps [contrary to beleif] there is no true, sole syllogism to interpret our intendment. In essence, we are placed here [for how we are placed is yet another inquiry to challenge] to discern our own unparagoned path and hope that our sanguinity does not miscarry us when composing our fates.

Though, it is a bit disheartening to think that we are entrenched here with no just causation other than our own Pollyannaism and that existance differs from life - for true, we breath [or in otherwords, live] but we do not exist until we allow ourselves to do so.

So, is the 'meaning of life' and the 'meaning of existance' two incommensurable questions not to be joined as one?