Purpose of life

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

nitpicking, eh ?

*edit*
oops, that was directed to the posts above Stefan's

@Stefan: you mean, how did things emerged out of void ?

Time is just a dimension, like distances. The 4 dimensions belong to the continuum we all know. In this regard you cannot separate them and ask something such as e.g how did time emerge from void ; since this question would be irrelevant or at least very incomplete because hiding the fact that not only time emerged from the void.

The key is to define void. It can sound stupid but have you ever wondered whether the absolute void, nothing, rien, nada, existed intrinsically at all ? Back in time, the air was believed as void. Later on, the space - between planets - was believed to be the void. Now, it's what was beyond the big bang. I dunno what to think.

What is certain though, is that the big bang created only antagonisms. Matter existed because of anti-matter, and energy because of what astrophysicians call "black energy". Time is nevertheless, like all dimensions, a distance that can be walked back and forth.

Let's not forget we can comprehend only 4 dimensions in the Universe, and practically represent ourselves only 3 of them at a time. What is above and beyond is subject to the craziest speculations. We're allowed to dream on!

[Cpl. Shrike]

Well yea if one wants to find the reason.
All non consistent factors need to be excluded.

[stefanhendriks]

nitpicking, me? It is at the end things you have to count in

So , nobody can answer my question. When did 'this' started. There is no beginning, so there is no end?

[sPlOrYgOn]

'time' is something humans created...
so before we invented 'time' there was 'no time'

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

^ my reply is in fact 3 posts above...

[Cpl. Shrike]

Not nessecarly we ppl like to think there is a begin and an end.

Maybe there are somethings that just ARE.
no begin no end.
This void PM speaks of sounds more as an "entity"
what could be totaly void (i call it void now but void is what we ppl think is void there for not nothing) is what's not in void ("entity").

[>BKA< T Wrecks]

Thinking about void, nothing, inexistence alone is enough to turn your brain into scrambled eggs... if you take the metaphysical point of view, then "nothing" doesn't exist at all. It's just a word we invented in order to have an opposite concept for "something", for "existence" or whatever you want. We couldn't speak of light if darkness didn't exist as well. We cannot grasp anything in an absolute way, I think. All we can do is compare, contrast, categorise... we see everything in relation to something else. Everything comes in pairs (or in more complex patterns) and only makes sense that way (to us, at least). The funny thing when talking about existence is that in this case the counterpart, which is essential for us to be able to talk about existence, does not exist. o_O
And the purpose of life, phew... the first replies given here aimed at some species or another, but I don't know if you can separate them from the rest. At a first glance, the purpose of the life of a duck may be to keep the duck population at at least the same level, ensuring the species' survival. But what the heck are ducks doing here, anyway? (Not that I bear any grudge against ducks, don't worry...) What's the purpose - not of the life of one or another species, but of life itself?
I think that whatever it may be, we'll probably not be able to conceive it anyway. When we are giving our individual lives a purpose, we do what we always do - we compare and see things in a relative way. We know behaviours we don't want to adopt, we see different ways of living and acting in relation with each other, and we judge and decide Whenever we see something we judge as "good", we have an opposite concept of something "bad" or "evil" in mind. As soon as one of these poles is eliminated, both are unthinkable for us. And what if the purpose of life is something absolute, something that doesn't have an opposite concept? I guess we wouldn't be able to grasp it, it would be beyond our reach.
----------------------
Another approach is this one:
The meaning of life is 42
(Recommended book: Hitchhiker's Guide Through the Galaxy by Douglas Adams (R.I.P.)

[kedat]

for human: to love

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

define "love" ?

love somebody in particular ? self ? other NOT self ? other AND self ?
love everybody in general, christian-style ?

if you mean love everybody in general, it goes in the same direction as the search for the common good - which is aetymologically, and also in the philosophical sense of the term, a political action.

For myself I love myself. That's a good start

[kedat]

Originally Posted by Pierre-Marie Baty

For myself I love myself. That's a good start

Right. U R half way.

Originally Posted by Pierre-Marie Baty

define love

shortest def. I can comeup with:
love = God
found the def.:
http://software77.com/onlinebibles/f...rby/46_013.htm