A Brief Explanation of Why Life is Useless
The biggest philosophical matter ever: the meaning of life, why we’re here, and what purpose we serve. Yet, to such a deep question, there is a simple answer–a chain of thoughts, even–which can explain why this the existence of life is futile.
The essence of life can only be reflected upon in retrospect, as memories of past events. Whilst the events are happening, we are too caught up in the swirl of occurances to make any sense of them. Only upon reflection afterwards do actions and happenings come together in any meaningful way. Therefore, life has to be thought about backwards.
Since the observation of our lives in behindview is the only one which matters, life is only meaningful to those who observe it, and not to those who live it. Thus, life has no value by its own nature, and whatever value it does have exists only in retrospect.
In that case, life becomes completely subjective, making it meaningless: as soon as life is not in memory, it has no purpose. Life has no intrinsic value.
Hmmm, it wasn’t as good as your first post. I think that your ideas of your life comprising of your memories doesn’t seem fully thought through, and your idea of you making your own life whatever you want through memories is plainly wrong. Have you ever thought of looking at the future in order to judge your life situation?
In response to Boggalog
1. I never said that life was comprised of memories. I said that life only takes form in a meaningful way when reflected upon as memories.
2. I see your point. I misworded my writing, please read the updated version now.
3. From looking at the future nothing can be determined with 100% whatsoever. How would this help me judge my life situation…?
So seeing no value in life whatsoever, and seeing no purpose in such, why do you hold back your selfish ambitions?
If there is no value in life, the only thing that matters is that you get yours, no matter who may stand in your way.
And authority, the government, police, and the law? Who gave them power over you, and what right have they to judge your actions?
Why follow their rules?
Because life has meaning, and I present the moral laws of mankind as proof of this.
If we are who scientists say we are, products of a long process starting with a microscopic single-celled organism, and culminating in the top of the food chain, alpa species that is a Human, then we should have no moral law.
Where would morality have evolved? Survival of the fittest does not exactly lend itself to selflessness.
By all accounts, we SHOULD be a race of savage territorialists, individually ruling, each competing for the maximum amount of females with which to produce children.
But yet we see reflected in the laws and customs of human civilization throughout the history of the world a code of conduct that defies the rules animals live by in order to be determined “fit” for their environment.
So these laws MUST have been put in place for a reason, and the only reason that makes sense is that humans have purpose in life. Otherwise, why bother with rules that do nothing but restrict their darwinistic success as an individual?
In response to Anon
Ah, the classic theist view. While it is true that life would certainly be far, far better if there were morals, this is NOT evidence for the existence of them.
You argue that without morals we could do whatever we like and go unpunished. I agree. And some people do. But we have had this-is-right and this-is-wrong hammered into our brains since we were born, so most of us still restrict ourselves, even if we know that whatever actions will have no consequences outside of this life.
You ask from where morals have evolved. Well, would you really think that humans at whatever time you think that morals first came around were capable of this type of thought? For all that they did not understand, there was a god ready to explain it all. The Nihilism for which I argue has only been around since the times of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi and Immanuel Kant.
But the main point I argue is the origin of such morals. Yes, you present fictitious gods as being the moral force in early civilization, but even these must have been the brainchild of an early man.
Where did this thought come from?
How was he even able to communicate to the rest of mankind this previously nonexistent philosophy of a “god”?
To have this idea, and for mankind to embrace it so readily as for this thought to still be a dominant force in the 21st century, goes completely against all the principles of natural selection and evolution.
I further feel compelled to mention the conscience in this debate. Consider any common criminal, a thief, rapist, even murderer. Why would one feel guilty for committing an act that by all accounts gave him an evolutionary advantage? The thief simply allotted himself more resources and so be more able to support a family or simply impregnate a female. Rapists take the most direct route to evolutionary success, while murders are removing other competitors from the gene pool, enhancing the effect their genes will have on future generations.
Yet the majority, (and I hold that all do, though this can never be proven), experience and admit to regretting their actions and crimes. Why is this? In some cases, it may shorten their prison terms, but what of those on death row, or those already released? They have no incentive to show remorse, yet they do.
Why?
In response to Anon
There is a simple answer to this — humans are social animals. We have always lived in groups and co-operated to survive.
You say that one could be a maverick and live a completely immoral life without punishment. By punishment, you imply punishment by God, a punishment that comes after this life. As mankind needs the membership of a group for survival, moral guidelines have evolved to ensure that this group can function properly. Failure to do this will result in a punishment, but not one outside-death, rather just death and, ultimately, the extinction of the species, which is what we were designed to avoid at all costs.
So how, in between gorillas and today’s human, did this social order develop?
Gorillas, stated by scientists to be today’s closest link to humans, are solitary creatures. It would seem this individualistic lifestyle would reinforce the every man for himself, lawless nature.
If a today’s closest living ancestor exhibits such isolatory behavior, how did mankind do such a complete u-turn from that base species?
In response to Anon
Sorry for the late reply…
Certain behaviours have been created for the humans to be able to function as a group. One of these were moral ethics. If these did not exist, the group would never function, for the very reasons you state — one could behave however one wanted. However, one would be ostracized from the group, thus drastically lowering the chances of survival, survival being the ultimate goal of evolution, what we and every other animal is engineered for. Further proof of the necessity of certain behaviours is shown by the use of names, the importance of which is self-explanatory.
On a sidenote, our closest relatives are chimpanzees, and they are indeed social animals. In fact, there are even basic forms of diplomacy; a BBC documentary showed a group hunting and killing another chimpanzee, for a reason that I have forgetten :P
Your argument makes excellent sense.
Well reasoned.
If this is so, however, then why does Communism not work for humans as a form of government? It is the closest form of government to the animalian social orders that still exists today.
If I have interpreted your point correctly, you mean that, since Communism is the most group-like society possible, it should work perfectly.
This is not so, because humans are only part of the group for THEIR OWN survival. If they get what they want without contributing, there is no reason for them to contribute. We are still egotistic being; only living in groups because that helps us to survive. That said, since people in the USSR were getting their daily ration of nutrition, they saw no reason to work hard, especially when everything they laboured for was taken away from them. I hope that makes sense.
I’d also like to point out that Communism DOES work perfectly if it is executed perfectly, which no nation has succeeded with. Singapore is the only dictatorship which has led to prominence, but it is not Communist.
Sense indeed.
Good thoughts.
I shall enjoy more philosophical debate in the future, I hope.
<3
i enjoyed reading this one