Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I believe in the existential view that life has no meaning and that everything we think has meaning has only been created by us. We have given meaning to life, it doesn't inherently hold it.

    This reminds me of my favourite philosophical quotation; Nietzsche once said that justice doesnt exist - it is simply something created by the weak in order to gain revenge on those stronger, and more imaginative, that themselves. This encapsulates my point: We are just beings that have fabricated our own worth and morals: Who is to say that murder is bad and not good? Why should people be punished for crime? We answer these questions based on morals which we ourselves created, the answers to not lie outside of space and time.

    So, as ive said, i believe there is no point to life and i challenge anyone who believes there is a point to prove to me that it is not a concept based on fabrications made by humans.

    See 'Waiting for Godot' by Samuel Beckett.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Of course, we're all products of our environment, and other factors such as genetics, all of which will ultimately affect how we think, and how we respond to certain situations.
    This is a 100% arbitrary matter and no definitive answer can be given, hense why the question has and always will be asked.

    For me, I think I live life because I thirst knowledge, and I seek to meet my potential for life. I have the ability to change the world, as do we all, should we so aspire to such levels. The challenge is there to be met and I seek to confront it. Should I have some fun on the way, and help other people to meet their potential- so be it.

    As for the bigger picture, I think if we are going to rule out God, there seems very little 'point' in the sense of an overall goal to work towards.

    When it comes to morals and us ruling out God as a motive for the conformity to these codes, I can safely say that to lead a morally upstanding life helps to fulfil these potentialities, and other peoples. As a human race, we need to live in an ordered, and fair society to grow mentally and spiritually (not in the sense of God, but as in the sense of ourselves). ultimately, I think the best point to assert is to preserve the human race so that others down the line can ask the very same question...why are we here, and where are we going?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    O RLY?

    Where is this morality from? Unless you're the greatest philosopher in history, I think you'll struggle to find an answer.

    Let's not push the boat out now, there are plenty of potential answers, just not one universal answer that everyone will agree with.

    Personally, I have recently been exploring the world of psychology and anthropology. In this I feel that a logical explanation of the origin of morals lies within the complexity of our own brains.

    Darwin as most know, asserted his own theory of evolution, one of the most distinictive factors of our own evolution is the increase in our brain, and therefore cognitive ability.

    I think it's not pressing too hard to suggest the possibility that our own brains have developed such morals as a means to survive in a world with a growing population, social rules so that we do not destroy ourselves.

    Look up 'The Prisoners Dilemma' by Dicky Dawkins. This explains how even from a 'younger' race we as apes were able to work together as a team to acheive the greater good (more food, bigger homes etc)

    This can also be explained via genetics: ASPM gene.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You thirst knowledge, this is the point you have given your life not necessarily the point of life?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Which was my overall point, of course I've given this to my own life. This is because I think logically speaking, there is no universal point that can be applied to one and all. In terms of ideology, there is not one subject that every person that was, is and ever will be has in common.

    To give something a meaning is very much a human quality, the desire to be guided and to ask questions comes from our own insecurity of life. This to me is why God and other religious figure heads are so popular, they offer the answers that otherwise seem so unattainable.

    In short, the point of life is 100% a subjective matter, it can be what ever takes your fancy. For that purpose to be respected amongst your peers however, it should be substantiated with logic, but that doesn't make logic a necessity for the person making the assertion, so long as they're content with their conclusion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree.

    One point on which I differ, however, is that I believe we must start with the realisation that there is no point at all. Creating a point is not real, it doenst exist. We all have points to our lives which we create, but i just dont think that they are worth anything to anybody apart from our own insecurities.

    Im finding it hard to articulate my feelings on this!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll keep checking back, if you finally find those ever elusive words with which best to descrive your opinion I'll be happy to read them.

    That's an interesting point, almost like ' you gotta go back to come back'
    I say 'go back' as an expression of the inverted conformity to religion, which would otherwise instil hope of a God who provides all the tough questions with a simple answer.

    As you say, once this is rejected, then can your own building blocks come into play.

    "Creating a point is not real, it doenst exist. "

    I'm afraid I don't quite follow your thoughts here, care to rephrase or assist me by giving me an example or something?

    thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)

    Atheism is cause for accepting life at face value. Such is the beauty of life, that it is validated within itself. There is no reason why one must submit to the futility of life and merely hope that it leads onto something more worthwhile in order for it to "have a point".
    I quite agree with this stand point, although I would ask the question: although Atheism certainly exists as 'the non belief in a God' or something similar to that effect, does that therefore mean that the atheist is completely unaffected by religious morality?

    I speak to as an an agnostic, perhaps that's partly to do with my own naivity, or otherwise.

    The problem I have is, legislation plays a large part in the biggy laws and therefore are apt expressions of what the majority deems to be moral. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. Are these conclusions not influenced by the church, as they have been a major influence on life as we know for many a year.

    I might like to point out, although there could be an argument for natural moral law, there are also counter arguments, as Im sure you're well aware.

    Primative african tribes who have been secluded from our own way of life, in some cases have been known to sacrifice human life. Which certainly counter acts the idea that moral reasoning is inherently part of humans.


    Now, I'm well aware that my standpoint too, is riddled with problems, I'm curious as to your response though.

    Thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think i mean to say that creating a point to life is not real, or is worthless, objectively speaking. The question of 'what is the point of life' is an objective question and thus cannot be tackled by our own creations.

    This is no clearer! Oh well, I bascially agree though; we all fabricate the points to our lives. I think my standpoint is just that this is meaningless and worthless - e.g. doing a good thing in your life is not a 'good' which transcends time it is a 'good' which we make up and which doesnt really exist.

    I'll shut up now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No no, I follow you now. It's a great point.
    I guess, like most philosophical questions, it depends on how you wish to interpret the key words involved.

    A shame such a beutiful subject and way of thinking is limited by our own inability to create a language which is NOT limited by its own rules and conventions.

    in short then:

    Objective question : Subjective answer

    = error
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    moral reasoning is inherently part of humans.
    Personally, I believe in what you said about this not being true. Nothing, apart maybe from animalistic instincts for food, sex, whatever, is inherent in our minds. Our morals are 100% based on nurture, not nature. How can we be born with philosophical ideals? Which is all that morals are - philosophical and created. I believe they are not above space and time, they do not exist everywhere in the universe at once.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    100% nurture you say, that's mighty bold of you. To clear my point up, I don't believe as children we're born with philosophical ideas.

    again, this is down to presuppositions, are morals completely made up?
    I personally don't think so; the brain is a complex thing, we barely know anything about it, and because of this I think it's logical to assume that there is a sense, deep within us (rooted in psychological factors, evolved and adapted to a radically changing world). It certainly would explain our inclinations to act in certain ways, esspecially if you think that children don't alays turn out like their parents.

    Now, our reasoning is something completely different, we can choose not to listen to these 'morals' or inclinations based on other factors. For example we have a powerful urge to eat in order to survive when ever we get hungry, but the thought of being thinner is sometimes the over riding influence on our actions, and so we refuse to eat.

    Murder I think is wrong to all, but put into different contexts, human sacrifice for your God, revenge for a wrong doing, punishment to maintain order within society could all be reasonable factors to over ride this initial thought that murder is wrong.
    The fact that 'special circumstances' have to be found to justify murder, suggests to me an internal or external influence. Sinse I don't believe in God, and the theory of evolution makes a lot of sense to me, I have adapted my own view to suit me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do you believe that humans are born with an ability for compassion or is this something which we learn to show in order to gain rewards for ourselves?

    Say if you are correct and that we do have something in our minds which tells us that murder is wrong, or any other moral belief - i would still believe that this is in our mind to suit ourselves rather than because these morals exist absolutely. I think all that we naturally have is instinct, but i could be persuaded that this instinct sometimes disguises itself as moral belief.

    To summarise, maybe we are born with the knowledge that murder is bad but this is not because murder is actually bad, it is because we do not want to be murdered ourselves so we create these morals and implement them in society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ahh, well when it comes to morals being intrinsicly good. I stand differently, sorry if that was the point you were making all along, I didn't pick up on it.

    in short, no. Morals are subject to the era and the given evidence.
    go back 100 years, smoking whilst pregnant wouldn't be looked at twice, do it now and it's shock horror! completely immoral.

    Yes, I believe that morals are rooted in a pre-existing instinct that is no matter how timid or prominent this instinct is, it is there - in my opinion.

    This is not to infer it is a truth of time and space, our evolutionary path will be incomprehensibly different to that of an alien from another galaxy, bigger sun, smaller plannet, who knows...all in all, they may not even have the same organs, limbs or what ever as us, having the same morals would be well..it would be astronomical

    Farewell for the night. I'll reply to anything tomorrow. :]

    nice chatting.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    Let's not push the boat out now, there are plenty of potential answers, just not one universal answer that everyone will agree with.

    Personally, I have recently been exploring the world of psychology and anthropology. In this I feel that a logical explanation of the origin of morals lies within the complexity of our own brains.

    Darwin as most know, asserted his own theory of evolution, one of the most distinictive factors of our own evolution is the increase in our brain, and therefore cognitive ability.

    I think it's not pressing too hard to suggest the possibility that our own brains have developed such morals as a means to survive in a world with a growing population, social rules so that we do not destroy ourselves.

    Look up 'The Prisoners Dilemma' by Dicky Dawkins. This explains how even from a 'younger' race we as apes were able to work together as a team to acheive the greater good (more food, bigger homes etc)

    This can also be explained via genetics: ASPM gene.
    That's an explanation of why our morality is how it is, and not a justification of how it ought to be. You can't derive the latter from the former, and without an "ought", you have no morality.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    That's an explanation of why our morality is how it is, and not a justification of how it ought to be. You can't derive the latter from the former, and without an "ought", you have no morality.
    That would be talking nonsense...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    That's an explanation of why our morality is how it is, and not a justification of how it ought to be. You can't derive the latter from the former, and without an "ought", you have no morality.
    You've already acknowledge that there exists a morality (first sentence), and yet later claim that there is no morality.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkened Angel)
    That would be talking nonsense...
    You what?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    You've already acknowledge that there exists a morality (first sentence), and yet later claim that there is no morality.
    The debate I'm having with her is different to the one I'm having with you.

    To clarify my position, only an "ought" morality is a morality. Any explanation of how people act and the causes of that action is not, in my view, a moral system.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    You what?
    There is no 'ought' in morality. Your discussion makes no sense. You're still trying to find a substitute to God, there isn't any in atheism, you need to learn to let go of this.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.