The Meaning of Life
- Thread starter La Sagna
- Start date
Yes! I have heard that quote many times!
Fantastic thought...although, yes, we do have a certain level of control over our own experiences, I believe it is out of our own hands more than our own egos wish to admit.
As far as us being the universe experiencing itself through us....I believe that to a certain extent...I doubt mostly because it is in my nature to be a highly questioning person...but the idea makes sense.
I’ve posted this picture elsewhere before, but it coincides with what you wrote-
Lovely! It is a literal fact that the universe is in us and we are in the universe as you demonstrate
The buddhists tell us that all of our problems are in our mind...a seemingly endless stream of thought traffic that stops the connection of our souls to a greater whole
It is the mind that tells us we need to do things and makes us forever discontented
To quieten the mind that is the tricky part...especially in a frantic modern world
If you think about how the system is set up it is set up so that we must always be doing something. If we just sit still for days the bills, rent, taxes will not pay themselves......this need to do things is like being on a treadmill, which i think is the perfect analogy because the slaves brought to the americas were made to walk on treadmills to power various processing machines
The system also enocurages us to buy more and more and take on more and more responsibilites to be a 'success'....but in the process we just speed up our treadmill until before we know it we are running flat out with no time to just be
We are also made to believe that we are seperate from nature as if it is an alien thing; this makes us forget that we ARE part of nature
I believe...no....i know this is by design
many problems people have in their lives come from anxiety. I think the best course of action in this case is to take the hooks that the system has in us out of our skin and to slow down our treadmill.....make time to be and to quieten the mind
No matter what we achieve in this life in a thousand years time no one will care or even know
we're here...we know that much....we are having an experience....we know that much. All that remains is for us as individuals and as a community to decide what sort of experience we want to have both individually and collectively
'god' and 'death'...these things will take care of themselves in time; the now...that's what matters...thats what we have at this moment
Ego says: ''once everything falls into place, i will find peace''
Spirit says: ''find peace and everything will fall into place''
Last edited:
It is interesting that the subject of suicide came up in this thread. It does makes sense to look at people who attempt or commit suicide to get clues as to what life means to people. I took a philosophy course on 'The Meaning of Life' last summer and suicide was definitly a major topic of the course. David Hume's Essay on Suicide is a very good argument against the idea of suicide being a a crime or a sin.
Here is an excerpt:
It would be easy to prove, that Suicide is as lawful under the christian dispensation as it was to the heathens. There is not a single text of scripture, which prohibits it. That great and infallible rule of faith and practice, which must controul all philosophy and human reasoning, has left us, in this particular, to our natural liberty. Resignation to providence is, indeed, recommended in scripture; but that implies only submission to ills, which are unavoidable, not to such as may be remedied by prudence or courage. Thou shalt not kill is evidently meant to exclude only the killing of others, over whose life we have no authority...
...What is the meaning, then, of that principle, that a man, who, tired of life, and hunted by pain and misery, bravely overcomes all the natural terrors of death, and makes his escape from this cruel scene; that such a man, I say, has incurred the indignation of his creator, by encroaching on the office of divine providence, and disturbing the order of the universe? Shall we assert, that the Almighty has reserved to himself, in any peculiar manner, the disposal of the lives of men, and has not submitted that event, in common with others, to the general laws, by which the universe is governed? This is plainly false. The lives of men depend upon the same laws as the lives of all other animals; and these are subjected to the general laws of matter and motion. The fall of a tower or the infusion of a poison will destroy a man equally with the meanest creature: An inundation sweeps away every thing, without distinction, that comes within the reach of its fury. Since therefore the lives of men are for ever dependent on the general laws of matter and motion; is a man’s disposing of his life criminal, because, in every case, it is criminal to encroach upon these laws, or disturb their operation? But this seems absurd. All animals are entrusted to their own prudence and skill for their conduct in the world, and have full authority, as far as their power extends, to alter all the operations of nature. Without the exercise of this authority, they could not subsist a moment. Every action, every motion of a man innovates in the order of some parts of matter, and diverts, from their ordinary course, the general laws of motion. Putting together, therefore, these conclusions, we find, that human life depends upon the general laws of matter and motion, and that it is no encroachment on the office of providence to disturb or alter these general laws. Has not every one, of consequence, the free disposal of his own life? And may he not lawfully employ that power with which nature has endowed him?
In order to destroy the evidence of this conclusion, we must shew a reason, why this particular case is excepted. Is it because human life is of so great importance, that it is a presumption for human prudence to dispose of it? But the life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster. And were it of ever so great importance, the order of nature has actually submitted it to human prudence, and reduced us to a necessity, in every incident, of determining concerning it.
Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the almighty that it were an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own lives; it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction. If I turn aside a stone, which is falling upon my head, I disturb the course of nature, and I invade the peculiar province of the almighty, by lengthening out my life, beyond the period, which, by the general laws of matter and motion, he had assigned to it.
A hair, a fly, an insect is able to destroy this mighty being, whose life is of such importance. Is it an absurdity to suppose, that human prudence may lawfully dispose of what depends on such insignificant causes?
Even though I have found a great deal of relief in 'just being' and I do believe that the purpose of life is probably just to live it, however that looks, I still feel empty if I don't have a 'mission' in my life. I need a goal giving me a reason for being, whether it is just being the best person I can be, or acquiring the most knowledge and wisdom that I can, or being the best mother that I can be, or saving the World 
.... 'just being' sometimes falls short for me, it also sometimes brings me the peace that I need because I can't be everything that I want to be or do everything that I want to do.
I have had moments where life seemed very bleak to me and I even had a major depression but suicide never felt like an option for me, because I didn't want to be responsible for people's pain. I have, however, felt like I would not care if I died right here and now, I just didn't want to be responsible for it.
.... 'just being' sometimes falls short for me, it also sometimes brings me the peace that I need because I can't be everything that I want to be or do everything that I want to do.I have had moments where life seemed very bleak to me and I even had a major depression but suicide never felt like an option for me, because I didn't want to be responsible for people's pain. I have, however, felt like I would not care if I died right here and now, I just didn't want to be responsible for it.
Even though I have found a great deal of relief in 'just being' and I do believe that the purpose of life is probably just to live it, however that looks, I still feel empty if I don't have a 'mission' in my life. I need a goal giving me a reason for being, whether it is just being the best person I can be, or acquiring the most knowledge and wisdom that I can, or being the best mother that I can be, or saving the World
I have had moments where life seemed very bleak to me and I even had a major depression but suicide never felt like an option for me, because I didn't want to be responsible for people's pain. I have, however, felt like I would not care if I died right here and now, I just didn't want to be responsible for it.
Well also keep in mind that "just being" doesn't mean "do nothing". It has to do with essential natures and the essence of what it means to 'be'.
Just considering the complexity of the universe and how it interacts, I don't think that one can argue that being entails doing nothing. Rather it implies a stillness where one doesn't get in their own way with incessant picking at things.
Think: if you have finite mental energy, and finite time to accomplish, how shall you best spend it? It's like people who are trying to learn the piano, and they stop and begin the song over again with each mistake - that's something that any good piano teacher will tell you not to do! You must play through and keep going! Why? Because every time you halt, you draw attention to the mistake, you throw yourself out of rhythm, and you waste time. The same could be said for excessive worry about goals and purpose.
Well, how do you get your goals and purposes then? They naturally reveal themselves to you regardless. Have you ever done free association in writing or art, so that ideas naturally lead to other ideas? This isn't entirely dissimilar.
The nature of things can be a guide if you let it, because it's been at this stuff longer than any of us. It will call to you. Why do you think so many philosophies speak to this? Are they just babbling esoteric nothings, or is there something to it maybe?
Even though I have found a great deal of relief in 'just being' and I do believe that the purpose of life is probably just to live it, however that looks, I still feel empty if I don't have a 'mission' in my life. I need a goal giving me a reason for being, whether it is just being the best person I can be, or acquiring the most knowledge and wisdom that I can, or being the best mother that I can be, or saving the World
I have had moments where life seemed very bleak to me and I even had a major depression but suicide never felt like an option for me, because I didn't want to be responsible for people's pain. I have, however, felt like I would not care if I died right here and now, I just didn't want to be responsible for it.
These two paragraphs are inter-linked
If we take on responsibilities then we create a polarity between what we want and how things currently are...polarity creates tension
If for example when a person wants to be the best parent they can be they will inevitably then never feel content that they have achieved that
its the same with the pursuit of money....when is enough enough?
Its my belief that as a society we are all putting too much pressure on ourselves and each other and that this is leading to widespread anxiety and in turn this is leading to widespread medication for anxiety as well as multiple forms of self medication
Even our economic models are built around something called 'progress'....progress to what exactly...a dead planet?
I wasn't advocating that by taking some time to simply be we should sit on our butts doing nothing the whole time!
I was advocating making some room in ones life for peaceful reflection....to soak things up....breathe the air, feel the wind/sun on your face, watch your kids play, talk with a loved one, share a moment with someone and so on...to really appreciate things even simple things like a glass of water when you're thirsty or a beautiful view
There is that zen saying: ''before enlightenment gather and chop wood for a fire; after enlightenment gather and chop wood for fire''
We all have things to do in this life. What i'm advocating is a re-think (or rather a re-feel, followed by a re-think) on what is actually good for us individually and as a society and what is actually destructive
Because the very fact so many people are feeling so much anxiety tells me that we are currently not living in alignment with our natures
stilling the mind and listening to our natures will help us understand what our true nourishment is
Last edited:
I agree, to me 'just being' means embracing myself and wherever I am and whatever I am doing at any given moment as what is 'supposed to be' right now, without judging. In the past, because I always wanted to be 'doing', 'achieving', 'creating', 'planning'... I left no room for just 'being'. Now I accept that if what I am doing at this moment is absolutly nothing that is not only ok but that is what I need to be doing at this moment.
My need for a 'mission' feels like it is a different dimension than 'just being'. It does not negate it but it exists apart from it, as something that brings meaning to my life. You can 'just be' without having a 'mission', many people don't have the need for such a mission, some people are driven by 'pleasure' or 'ease' or 'creativity', and that is what brings meaning to their life. You can live your life for any of these or other reasons and still be present and centered. Most people though are driven by something but aren't present and centered, they are consumed by their drive. I think that might be the difference. It's all about balance. Some people by their very nature are very good at 'just being' but their time is spent doing very little that I would consider 'of meaning'. I don't want to say that they are wasting their life but that is how that would feel to me.
I like that saying. It is acknowledging the realities of life while aiming for enlightenement. That is what I find frustrating at times when I am reading philosophy, the impractical nature of what many philosophers suggest is the way we should live. There is a reason that many philosophers were independantly wealthy. Most people on earth are busy surviving and don't have the luxury of searching for enlightenment.
This is what i mean about the 'treadmill'
The powerful (ie super rich) people who are currently controlling our society want to keep everyone on the treadmill
They have designed the system so that they can do this. The IRS was created the same year that the federal reserve bank was created...this is no coincidence
if you can control income tax, interest rates and the value (scarcity) of money as well as price fixing of commodities then you can keep most of the general population on the breadline or at least not able to improve their lot in life in any significant way
Most people do not own their house outright. Many don't own their vehicle outright. people borrow to have these things.....that in itself is an illusion of wealth
So the whole system is diabolically contrived to keep the mass of people busy...so busy that they cannot stop to question if the system is actually working for them or not
The chains are not visible but they are still there (hence why it is called ''wage slavery''). If anyone doubts this they could stop making their payments and see how they get on, but they can be pretty sure the system will penalise them
So what i'm saying is that we have to understand what works for us and then live in alignment with that (as far as possible) because the game the controllers want us to play is toxic
This then brings us to ghandi's famous saying 'be the change you want to see in the world'. if we all stop playing the game, the game will have to change. The system is a web of many strands designed to ensnare people. If we can consciously understand what the strands are then we can consciously work around them
Some people say 'that's just the way things are'...but that's not true....its all a human construct and therefore it can all be changed
Last edited:
A young physician in Tokyo named Kusuda met a college friend who had been studying Zen. The young doctor asked him what Zen was.
"I cannot tell you what it is," the friend replied, "but one thing is certain. If you understand Zen, you will not be afraid to die."
"That's fine," said Kusuda. "I will try it. Where can I find a teacher?"
"Go to the master Nan-in," the friend told him.
So Kusuda went to call on Nan-in. He carried a dagger nine and a half inches long to determine whether or not the teacher was afraid to die.
When Nan-in saw Kusuda he exclaimed: "Hello, friend. How are you? We haven't seen each other for a long time!"
This perplexed Kusuda, who replied: "We have never met before."
"That's right," answered Nan-in. "I mistook you for another physician who is receiving instruction here."
With such a begining, Kusuda lost his chance to test the master, so reluctantly he asked if he might receive instruction.
Nan-in said: "Zen is not a difficult task. If you are a physician, treat your patients with kindness. That is Zen."
Kusuda visited Nan-in three times. Each time Nan-in told him the same thing. "A phsisician should not waste time around here. Go home and take care of your patients."
It was not clear to Kusuda how such teaching could remove the fear of death. So on the forth visit he complained: "My friend told me that when one learns Zen one loses his fear of death. Each time I come here you tell me to take care of my patients. I know that much. If that is your so-called Zen, I am not going to visit you anymore."
Nan-in smiled and patted the doctor. "I have been too strict with you. Let me give you a koan." He presented Kusuda with Joshu's Mu to work over, which is the first mind-enlightening problem in the book called The Gateless Gate.
Kusuda pondered this problem of Mu (No-Thing) for two years. At length he thought he had reached certainty of mind. But his teacher commented: "You are not in yet."
Kusuda continued in concentration for another yet and a half. His mind became placid. Problems dissolved. No-Thing became the truth. He served his patients well and, without even knowing it, he was free from concern of life and death.
Then he visited Nan-in, his old teacher just smiled.
The guru as trickster!
[video=youtube;97Z6EmNy4VY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Z6EmNy4VY[/video]
I reacted the same way.
I have always had an issue with praying for something specific or 'manifesting' as some of my friends firmly believe in, for me you pray or meditate for peace of mind, not for specific wishes. I was in a group once where we had to create a 'manifestation board'. I did it but I couldn't relate to it at all. It felt meaningless. I would rather be open to whatever comes than put on a board things like pictures of money or a vacation or the word 'Enlightenment'. I think if you are cutting it out and putting it on a board you are spending your energy on the wrong thing. I want to feel things, or live things by doing specific concrete things that will help me reach a goal, not create wishful dreams through pretty pictures.
I have a friend who firmly believes in her manifestation board and tells me how some of the things she manifests for have happened. I think the ratio of her wishes coming true is pretty much the same as mine even though I don't put it on a board. She named her dog 'Manifest' because she believes that because she put a picture of that type of dog on her board then it happened. As for myself, when I wanted a dog I looked around and found a dog that I liked and brought him home. I didn't have a picture of a dog on a board but somehow I ended up getting what I wanted just the way she did. She of course also had to look around until she found the dog that she wanted, no difference than I how I did it.
This is similar to Nietzsche's ideas of the Master-Slave Morality.
Master morality
Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. Nietzsche criticizes the view, which he identifies with contemporary British ideology, that good is everything that is helpful; what is bad is what is harmful. He argues that this view has forgotten the origins of the values, and thus it calls what is useful good on the grounds of habitualness - what is useful has always been defined as good, therefore usefulness is goodness as a value. He continues explaining, that in the prehistoric state, "the value or non-value of an action was derived from its consequences"[1] but ultimately, "There are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of phenomena."[2] For these strong-willed men, the 'good' is the noble, strong and powerful, while the 'bad' is the weak, cowardly, timid and petty. The essence of master morality is nobility. Other qualities that are often valued in master moralities are open-mindedness, courage, truthfulness, trust and an accurate sense of self-worth. Master morality begins in the 'noble man' with a spontaneous idea of the good, then the idea of bad develops as what is not good. "The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating."[3] In this sense, the master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of all things.[citation needed] Insomuch as something is helpful to the strong-willed man it is like what he values in himself; therefore, the strong-willed man values such things as 'good'. Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master-morality with their slave-morality.
Slave morality
Unlike master morality which is sentiment, slave morality is literally re-sentiment—revaluing that which the master values. This strays from the valuation of actions based on consequences to the valuation of actions based on "intention".[4] As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility:[5] the good is what is most useful for the whole community, not the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction. Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery (viz., the will to power) are 'evil', as are the qualities they originally could not choose because of their weakness. By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master. Biblical principles of turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well. "The democratic movement is the heir to Christianity."[6]—the political manifestation of slave morality because of its obsession with freedom and equality.
Last edited:
I think this problem it's much more complicated and complex then it seem at first.
Yes, many of those people (artists ) commit suicide. But many do not, and manage to live a life with passion and with joy, a life full of meaning. And they DO have a philosophy at their life's core, whatever that would be. That's why generalisations are a bit simplistic.
I don't think Vaclav Havel was reffering at people who commit suicide by just being bored or depressed of life, and trying to get over it. He was talking about other kinds of people, people who were doing sacrifices, who believed in values, in meaning, in a after life, people who maybe give up their life to save something, to preserve an ideal, maybe people who died for their dear ones, for protecting freedom, love, justice...
He could also reffer to other kinds of people, maybe people who were break by the weights that the world has put upon them...
And the interesting fact is, those kind of people didn't do it (suicide) with an attidute of depression, of bore, they do it with JOY, with PASSION, with LOVE, as if this life was just a step twoard another world...
About your INTP friend...if he said this
then that's his philosophy, right there. Not living according to "some philosophy" is in fact a philosophy, namely that "I don't live according to some philosophy". He just doesn't realise this, but he has a kind of personal philosophy. In fact every man on this earth which thinks and it's not crazy has a philosophy, whether he recognise it or not.
And speaking about "I don't live according to some philosophy. Life is so much easier once you realize that." philosophy, it's not a new one. If we look in history , we'll se that many people adopted this kind of view, the carefree, no responsability, I have no philosophy kind of philosophy.
When it comes to Havel, he is pretty much the opposite of Nietzche,. That's why is important to draw a line between the philosophies of people, and how their ideas is related/linked to their personal philosophy. That's very important, we can't just generalise things in the big picture and ascribe an idea universally. We have to keep in count the context of that idea, and what is the core belief/philosophy.
Havel believed that some things are inherently good, while some things are inherently bad. He also believed there is a God.
Nietzche, on the other hand, was the founder of nihilism, as a philosophy. He negated the existence of morality at all and the existence of God too. Nihilism glorifies the absurd, the non-sense, the absence of truth, and demands that there are no such things as real values or meanings in any sense.
Now, which of these philosophers is closer to the truth would be another story. I only want to say that their ideas originated in a context of thoughts/beliefs, and that is very important to interpret their ideas correctly.
Last edited:
"A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth – that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still knows bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved." – P.37 Man's Search for Meaning - Victor Frankl
