[Lerkfish]

(for the sake of this thread, lets operate on an arbitrary presumption and go from there...you can, of course, argue the validity of the presumption as well, but I'm more interested in the stuff that follows if we accept the presumption)

PRESUMPTION A: We are here to learn something. (this can be independent of religious teaching)
THEREFORE: If we accept that presumption A holds, then the following questions arise:

1. What is the best way to learn? Does enduring hardship make us grow personally or is avoiding harship preferable?
2. What types of things should we be learning? How to better ourselves? How to better mankind? How to peacefully coexist? How to sucessfully conquer? How to survive more efficiently as a species?
3. How do we prioritize what we need to learn? In other words, what lessons are worth expending x amount of time learning? (for example, I could spend years learning French, but if I never apply it, is that a worthwhile attainment?)
4. Is there a purpose to our lives beyond survival? If so, is there a purpose to that purpose?


Just some ponderables for your breakfast this morning.

[Swiss Bob]

1) Drink beer.
2) How to acquire a limitless supply of beer.
3) According to how much beer we think it would get us.
4) Yes, to drink beer.

[maxelson]

Well, now. I was just podering this.

A couple of nights back, I decided to do a bit of research on a Shalespeare play. The motivation stemmed from a discussion at a rehearsal the night before.

I skittered off to my little personal library, yanked a copy of Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare and Harold Bloom's Shakespeare- The Invention of the Human and began scouring.

I wondered why the given questions should be so bloody important to me. Simple interest? It could not have been motivated by the playing of the piece- my own philosophy about playing involves acting only that which is playable (it matters not at all what I may think about any prior unspecified relationship between the characters of, say, Benedick and Leonato because, ultimately, it is not playable to the extent that the text outlines through dialogue the relationship that already exists. Anything else can only serve to muddy the waters and create a story that is not of the author's intention).

It occured to me that the majority of my learning, if not all, is self imposed. Most, if not all, is a direct, semi direct or indirect result of situations which have occured or will occur. The purpose for the learning was self imposed in one way or another. What is worthwhile is also purely subjective. Prioritizing. Hm. Well, that is self imposed as well, of course. I would propose that "purpose" is self imposed as well.
Not quite solipsist, but there are tinges of that.

[slowtax]

Hey Lerkfish, great, my first post - I get to start with the only question of real substance: Why are we here?

I recognise and like all the questions you have raised, but I find 'presumption A' a little shallow. Makes sense on a personal level but if you widen the focus a little...

We are here so... what do we do? You say 'Learn' which may improve the hell out of 'you' but 'you' are only a small part of everything out there.

Someone who has designed and over-seen construction of a shopping mall has had a more tangible influence on the universe than someone who has spent their life obtaining perfect knowledge.

Swiss Bob, mine's Guiness. Cheers!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by slowtax:
Hey Lerkfish, great, my first post - I get to start with the only question of real substance: Why are we here?

I recognise and like all the questions you have raised, but I find 'presumption A' a little shallow. Makes sense on a personal level but if you widen the focus a little...

We are here so... what do we do? You say 'Learn' which may improve the hell out of 'you' but 'you' are only a small part of everything out there.

Someone who has designed and over-seen construction of a shopping mall has had a more tangible influence on the universe than someone who has spent their life obtaining perfect knowledge.

Swiss Bob, mine's Guiness. Cheers!

ah....good point. Application of what we learn is the purpose, not the learning itself.

hm....

the monk vs. the missionary debate...whether its better to know more but shut yourself off, or do more and benefit the larger whole.

[gadster]

From a biological perspective, our purpose is to produce as many fertile, sustainable and 'successful' progeny as possible. We're all genitalia. All other organs, appendages and orifices are there to support the 'primary objective'.

[andreas_g4]

I very often ponder about questions like this. But it's hard for me to share my thoughts not in my mother language. I'll give it a try...

1. In my opinion, that's highly individual.

2. Every lifeform learns what it needs to survive. Obviously, billions of people have some kind of "freedom of choice", means that I was able to learn anything to earn money to "survive".

3. Learn what you want, just be sure to learn how to link your knowledge. Think networked.

4. In my opinion, to survive is an instinct. Although feelings like love or hate are probably more complex than the superstringtheory or black hole entropy, there would be near to nothing missing in the universe.

Life is great. Right. Get out at a cloud less night. Raise your view. What you can see, is also near to nothing in relation to that what we commonly call "universe".

See you. See your city. See your country. See your continent. see the world. see the sol system. see the (our) milky way. Hit the red button - boom everything of this is gone.

There is - again - near to nothing missing.

We are nothing.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by gadster:
From a biological perspective, our purpose is to produce as many fertile, sustainable and 'successful' progeny as possible. We're all genitalia. All other organs, appendages and orifices are there to support the 'primary objective'.

Alright! The ole "I'm naught but a house for my penis" approach.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by andreas_g4:
I very often ponder about questions like this. But it's hard for me to share my thoughts not in my mother language. I'll give it a try...

1. In my opinion, that's highly individual.

2. Every lifeform learns what it needs to survive. Obviously, billions of people have some kind of "freedom of choice", means that I was able to learn anything to earn money to "survive".

3. Learn what you want, just be sure to learn how to link your knowledge. Think networked.

4. In my opinion, to survive is an instinct. Although feelings like love or hate are probably more complex than the superstringtheory or black hole entropy, there would be near to nothing missing in the universe.

Life is great. Right. Get out at a cloud less night. Raise your view. What you can see, is also near to nothing in relation to that what we commonly call "universe".

See you. See your city. See your country. See your continent. see the world. see the sol system. see the (our) milky way. Hit the red button - boom everything of this is gone.

There is - again - near to nothing missing.

We are nothing.

The chalk so far:
Solipsism: 1
Nihilism: 1
Biologism: 2 (I include the beer guy)

Do I have an Epicurian? Alas, Mas is in London.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by gadster:
From a biological perspective, our purpose is to produce as many fertile, sustainable and 'successful' progeny as possible. We're all genitalia. All other organs, appendages and orifices are there to support the 'primary objective'.

Completely agree.

Additionally, we humans have an innate sense of curiosity. Somewhere along the line tens of thousands of years ago, something clicked in our brain and we became aware and curious of our surroundings, ourselves, and everything else. Perhaps a genetic mutation?

Hmmmm how to prioritize.... to quote a movie I just saw "Three Kings"...

Archie Gates: What's the most important thing in life?
Troy Barlow: Respect.
Archie Gates: Too dependent on other people.
Conrad Vig: What, love?
Archie Gates: A little Disneyland, isn't it?
Chief Elgin: God's will.
Archie Gates: Close.
Troy Barlow: What is it then?
Archie Gates: Necessity.
Troy Barlow: As in?
Archie Gates: As in people do what is most necessary to them at any given moment.

[slowtax]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ah....good point. Application of what we learn is the purpose, not the learning itself.

hm....

the monk vs. the missionary debate...whether its better to know more but shut yourself off, or do more and benefit the larger whole.

Heh, I hope I didn't come off sounding like I had a point I'll have to watch that...
I'm actually quite laid back about the topic. The best way I ever found of spending time, snowboarding, well thats quite self-absorbed.

I like what Andreas_g4 put: 'Think Networked', the internet as a Hive Mind.

The drive to procreate is just to ensure the survival of our species but we are over riding that impulse to design & create the things that may superceed us, like uh Terminator robots.

[BlackGriffen]

Why that's simple. The purpose of purpose is to motivate people beyond the basic "eat, sleep, and crap."

BG

[maxelson]

But to what purpose?

[Kitschy]

I believe the purpose of life is to please God.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
I believe the purpose of life is to please God.

but what is the [purpose of that purpose?

I mean, do we do that by bettering ourselves, others, contributing something lasting or something ephemeral?
Is it more important to love than to achieve?
What pleases God more?
Or, if you aren't relgiious, what actions/attitudes/achievements best suit our purpose?

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but what is the [purpose of that purpose?

Oh, I see...

It seems to me that everybody has this idea or, better put, the "instinct" of purpose. It's built into us. We all desire purpose. I dont' believe that "purpose" is a social convention.

So, what it comes down to is what purpose you have. Not, why we have purpose. Because in that very question, we have a purpose: to find out what the purpose of having a purpose is.

Hm...I just re-read your post and still don't know if I am getting what you are saying. Maybe my response will tell you if I am understanding your question right.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Oh, I see...

It seems to me that everybody has this idea or, better put, the "instinct" of purpose. It's built into us. We all desire purpose. I dont' believe that "purpose" is a social convention.

So, what it comes down to is what purpose you have. Not, why we have purpose. Because in that very question, we have a purpose: to find out what the purpose of having a purpose is.

Hm...I just re-read your post and still don't know if I am getting what you are saying. Maybe my response will tell you if I am understanding your question right.

your response is fine, I'm just trying to generate discussion in an open-ended way so ANY response you'd have is fine because it reveals what you think, even if it doesn't relate directly to what I'm getting at.

What I was trying to get at is if you say our purpose is to please God, then we can ask a question that can be read in different ways:

What is the purpose of pleasing God?
-- Does he need to be pleased? Does pleasing him help us? Does pleasing him really just mean we are working better at our potential? what type of things are more pleasing than other things?
--OR: What is the purpose of purpose in thinking that our purpose is pleasing God--meaning why would that purpose be there? What is it about us as a creature that requires a need to HAVE a purpose?

---OR what constitutes pleasing in regards to what we do with our lives? If a man does not contribute to society, but knows how to selflessly love his family friends, and even his enemies, has he fulfilled his purpose in a greater way than say, Alexander the Great? Are lasting impressions on the wax of history of greater purpose than being a more compassionate and loving being (for example)?

To ask it another way: if the days of our lives are currency: what do we choose to spend it on?

[Gul Banana]

Being happy. Given that this life may be the only existence we have, we should enjoy it. And that means as much of it as is possible.. it's not worthwhile to spend 20 years doing something you hate in order to have 20 years of relative luxury.

Note that this is not hedonism; the pursuit of pleasure is a short-term happiness which often leads to ruin. The idea is to balance present happiness with future happiness, and do what creates the most of both.

[sambeau]

We are not here for our genetalia.
Our genetalia is here in a nifty attempt to make us immortal.
What the us is beneath the mind and flesh that lives on - I have no idea.

[sambeau]

If we are here to please god then we are enslaved - or at the very best, pets.
Did He breed us to please Him?

If this is true then it is our duty to rebel and break free from our devine shackles..

[wolfen]

1) Life happens and you learn. Aversion to experience will simply yield fear. Therefore, wake up each day open to its offerings.

2) Like politics, "All learning is local." The question is not what we should be learning, but what I should be learning. The temptation to guess others' developmental needs is a self-destructive distraction. Normal response to this statement begins with "Yeah, but..." Don't do that.

3) Prioritization is the trickiest part of the mix. The truly enlightened seemed to approach it this way: Learn what there is to learn right now. Whatever is revealed to you will also make your other learning needs more apparent. The ability to focus on here and now yields much more than it first appears. My advice is this: When you were a kid, your mind enjoyed wandering to certain kinds of things. Don't forget what they were...always stay focused on what has always been important to you.

4) The answer to the Meaning of Life is in Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life." It's a 10 second statement toward the end of a bewildering movie. But that's the point. Look past the chaos and try to focus on the still, small voice within you.

Good luck,

wolfen

[voodoo]

there is no why

[DBursey]

Addressing #4:

Our purposes are as varied as the paths we assume as individuals. My opinion characterizes meaningful purpose as that which addresses and assuages our innate drive for growth on levels intellectual, spiritual and emotional, one which engenders satisfaction, happiness, security and stability for the self, the family and the greater community.

My father had a simple guide to finding meaning in life. It was to be fair and honest with one's self and with others, to enjoy the passage of time, to tread lightly as stewards and to leave the world in at least as good a shape as it was when we arrived.

As for the learning of French; if the process or the result provides a measure of personal satisfaction, then it will have been worth the effort, utilitarian considerations notwithstanding.

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

So...the purpose of porpoise is pudding?

hm.....

[daimoni]

.

[Timo]

Bracketing the assumption, as directed.

Asked by Lerkfish:
1. (a) What is the best way to learn? (b) Does enduring hardship make us grow personally or (c) is avoiding harship preferable?

Mixed questions, really.

(a) The best way to learn depends on two things: what is being learned, and who is learning (and where said person is in his or her trajectory of their learning). We can develop this idea more vis-�-vis question 2.

(b) yes.
(c) yes.
[ (b) and (c) are a false dichotomy, IMHO ]

Asked by Lerkfish:
2. (a) What types of things should we be learning? (b) How to better ourselves? (c) How to better mankind? (d) How to peacefully coexist? (e) How to sucessfully conquer? (f) How to survive more efficiently as a species?

Phew. I'll take (a) again first, before going on to the subset questions, because they try to tune into aspects of the larger question.

In my opinion we should be learning in three distinct ways:

i. learning by body: physical learning (this might include all learning that involves sight, space, touch, feel, balance, sound; but also sex, love and emotional wisdom).

ii. learning by abstraction: here, the world of symbols but also representations and their manipulation (mathematics, sure, but also literature and even put religion in here if you're an unbeliever).

iii. learning by reflection. This one might be regarded as a subset of abstraction, but in a way its more a combination of i and ii (egads, I've made a dialectic). By reflection I mean looking onto one's physical place (physical, emotional, time) with tools of abstraction, for the purpose of repositioning oneself and understanding one's place more thoroughly than being just stuck in the moment. A way to shift your POV, but more dramatically, as if you could shift not just view but place, trajectory and meaning too.

Obviously if you have faith then faith and reflection go hand-in-hand, but reflection on its own is a valid secular concept as well.

So, (b) is (i) and (ii): these should be balanced (see question 3).
(c) is (iii), with the knowledge reinscribed onto the world (i).
(d) is (iii)
(e) is (ii) with practical (i) thrown in for logistics (but remember it is most important to conquer the mind)
(f) is interesting. Our age neglects (i), and our best way of surviving as a species is to understand better (i) and the interaction between (i) and (iii).

Confused yet?

Asked by Lerkfish:
3. How do we prioritize what we need to learn? In other words, what lessons are worth expending x amount of time learning? (for example, I could spend years learning French, but if I never apply it, is that a worthwhile attainment?)

Two things.
1. Knowledge and its proper acquisition is a poor candidate for this type of "economic" (or Tayloristic) analysis. One can easily see that understood more concretely the acquistion of knowledge is potentially 24/7. If the question is, how much time should I spend formally, the answer is, how much time do you need to spend formally? Also, you ask what use knowledge if it can't be applied: an interesting bias that unravels when one sees in how many ways so called unapplied knowledge actually applies.

2. Balance is important, which is why mode (iii) above is important. Balance and reflection helps allocate time, but so does interest, sponteneitiy, opportunity and happen-stance. Put God in here too and you see you don't need to juggle the question around so much as just do the work.

Asked by Lerkfish:
4. Is there a purpose to our lives beyond survival? If so, is there a purpose to that purpose?

(iii)

Thanks for reading

[7Macfreak]

Here's what i think.
the main reason why we want to learn (purpose of purpose), is due to the very inquisitive nature of human beings coupled with the ability to do so. we're always out there trying to make sense of everything even though there might not be an objective 'truth'. We give meaning to all kinds of things in a way that seem perfectly logical to us.

for most of your questions, i'd recommend the selfish gene by richard dawkins, just for another perspective, if nothing more.

ah too tired to think any more now, pulled an all nighter writing a paper on the phil. of science.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Finally an interesting Lounge topic, and here I am stuck at work with my head about to explode.

[thunderous_funker]

To my mind, the original formulation of the presumption indicates that there is one Essential Teleology and we must understand it in order to adequately answer the question. In other words, it presupposes only one "right" answer. The answer that will tell us what to do with ourselves.

Rorty calls this "redemptive truth".

I shall use the term �redemptive truth� for a set of beliefs which would end, once and for all, the process of reflection on what to do with ourselves. Redemptive truth would not consist in theories about how things interact causally, but instead would fulfill the need that religion and philosophy have attempted to satisfy. This is the need to fit everything�every thing, person, event, idea and poem --into a single context, a context which will somehow reveal itself as natural, destined, and unique. It would be the only context that would matter for purposes of shaping our lives, because it would be the only one in which those lives appear as they truly are. To believe in redemptive truth is to believe that there is something that stands to human life as elementary physical particles stand to the four elements�something that is the reality behind the appearance, the one true description of what is going on, the final secret.

I follow Rorty in rejecting the notion of redemptive truth.

Therefore, I would restate the presumption as:

We are here so we might as well learn something.

You will continue to be here regardless of what Purpose you suppose so why not pick something worthwhile? The alternative is nihilism or existential angst.

So the purpose of purpose is purpose. Choose thyself.

Rorty talks about Heidegger's sense of Authenticity and melds them with Bloom's notion of autonomy.

Hope that such a context [redemptive truth] can be found is one species of a larger genus. The larger genus is what Heidegger called the hope for authenticity�the hope to be one�s own person rather than merely the creation of one�s education or one�s environment. As Heidegger emphasized, to achieve authenticity in this sense is not necessarily to reject one�s past. It may instead be a matter of reinterpreting that past so as to make it more suitable for one�s own purposes. What matters is to have seen one or more alternatives to the purposes that most people take for granted, and to have chosen among these alternatives--thereby, in some measure, creating yourself. As Harold Bloom has recently reminded us, the point of reading a great many books is to become aware of a great number of alternative purposes, and the point of that is to become an autonomous self. Autonomy, in this un-Kantian and distinctively Bloomian sense, is pretty much the same thing as Heideggerian authenticity.

In this sense, we can say that Intellectuals (those who search for purpose by reading lots of books, going to lots of gurus, climbing lots of mountains) have gone through various stages in their quest of purpose. Religious, Philosphical and Literary.

It is that the intellectuals of the West have, since the Renaissance, progressed through three stages: they have hoped for redemption first from God, then from philosophy, and now from literature. Monotheistic religion offers hope for redemption through entering into a new relation to a supremely powerful non-human person. Belief�as in belief in the articles of a creed�may be only incidental to such a relationship. For philosophy, however, beliefs are of the essence. Redemption by philosophy is through the acquisition of a set of beliefs which represent things in the one way they really are. Literature, finally, offers redemption through making the acquaintance of as great a variety of human beings as possible. Here again, as in religion, true belief may be of little importance.


From within a literary culture, religion and philosophy appear as literary genres. As such, they are optional. Just as an intellectual may opt to read many poems but few novels, or many novels but few poems, so he or she may read much philosophy, or much religious writing, but relatively few poems or novels. The difference between the literary intellectuals� readings of all these books and other readings of them is that the inhabitant of a literary culture treats books as human attempts to meet human needs, rather than as acknowledgements of the power of a being that is what it is apart from any such needs. God and Truth, are, respectively the religious and the philosophical names for that sort of being.

He recommends the emergence of a "literary culture" as the evolution from religious or philosophical cultures.

a culture which has substituted literature for both religion and philosophy finds redemption neither in a non-cognitive relation to a non-human person nor in a cognitive relation to propositions, but in non-cognitive relations to other human beings, relations mediated by human artifacts such as books and buildings, paintings and songs. These artifacts provide glimpses of alternative ways of being human. This sort of culture drops a presupposition common to religion and philosophy�that redemption must come from one�s relation to something that is not just one more human creation,

[daimoni]

.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Since we're alive, our job is to be as alive as possible.

I can get behind that.

[Lerkfish]

Great thought-provoking posts, guys!!! keep it up!.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by daimoni:
I'm not that hip/up-to-speed with the western philosophy thang, but in my own simple way of looking at things, I tend to agree with the above presumption.

In San Jose, CA... there is (or used to be) an Australian-run restaurant in the middle of no where (near the pick-n-pull/light industrial area of town).

Outside they had a large banner that read, "Let's Eat Here Before We Both Starve".

That to me, sums up the purpose of life.

Since we're alive, our job is to be as alive as possible. If that means wearing a cape and saving the world or cooking the perfect steak or just learning Perl, so be it.

And when we die, we should be the best durn rotting corpse/ash collection that we can be.

Edit: Found it!

Australian Restaurant
898 Lincoln Ave, San Jose, CA
Tel: (408) 293-1112

Sorry I got so grandiose to say what you've put here so succinctly. I guess I'm still a bit giddy over my resent discovering of Rorty and his ideas so like all new things I can't seem to help wanting to share them.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
So...the purpose of porpoise is pudding?

The proof is in the pudding, which this margin is too small to contain.

[deekay1]

it is good to have a goal (purpose), but in the end it's the journey that counts.

[mo]

The answer is: 42.

[Ryan1524]

another question: WHY do we learn? what purpose does that serve.
from my perspective, eevrything we learn, everything we accomplish, everything we ever achieved and experienced in life will eventually vanish and be extinguished from memory.

so what is the point of living and learning?? what is the meaning of life?? (oh, the infinitely unsolveable question)

from where i stand, i work hard on things in my life to accomplish something that will sooner or later be destroyed and forgotten, so why the effort??

mankind reproduce to maintain their species and keep them from becoming extinct, as do all living creature. ironically, all other living things have coexisted with nature, but humans do not. we disrupt the natural ecosytm of this planet, consume resources, slowly destroying this planet. the only thing that differentiates us from other organisms is our sentience, our intelligence. but if it's so destructive, what is it good for? we're slowly killing this world and ourselves. why are people so persistent on preserving their lives??

am i making any sense here??

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Ryan1524:
another question: WHY do we learn? what purpose does that serve.
from my perspective, eevrything we learn, everything we accomplish, everything we ever achieved and experienced in life will eventually vanish and be extinguished from memory.

so what is the point of living and learning?? what is the meaning of life?? (oh, the infinitely unsolveable question)

from where i stand, i work hard on things in my life to accomplish something that will sooner or later be destroyed and forgotten, so why the effort??

mankind reproduce to maintain their species and keep them from becoming extinct, as do all living creature. ironically, all other living things have coexisted with nature, but humans do not. we disrupt the natural ecosytm of this planet, consume resources, slowly destroying this planet. the only thing that differentiates us from other organisms is our sentience, our intelligence. but if it's so destructive, what is it good for? we're slowly killing this world and ourselves. why are people so persistent on preserving their lives??

am i making any sense here??

Did Plato change the world? Did Jesus? Did the Beatles?

The danger of slipping into nihilism only comes about when we attempt to justify our seemingly insignificant actions in terms of some greater Purpose. When we compare ourselves to Truth, Good, God or some other redemptive context.

Only from a viewpoint of such a redemptive context (that there is a Grand Design and the value of all things is merely a measure of how they fit into that Grand Design) that we fall into this angst ridden trap. What does The Beatles have to do with Salvation? What did Jesus have to do with Quantum Theory?

So if you find yourself asking "why bother?" or "what's the point?", I suggest that it means you've allowed yourself to fall into the trap of yearning for redemptive truth.

You're alive whether or not you think it has "meaning". If you can't think of any reasons to stay that way, I suppose there is no reason to continue. I'm just surprised that people can't seem to find reasons for wanting to remain alive.

That's not necessarily the "life is beautiful" spiel. It's more of the, "even if life isn't beautiful, it beats the alternative".

[MikeM33]

Well as some of you may (or may not) know I kinda busted-up my knee recently. And well the circumstances leading-up to that whole busted-up knee thing were probably less than honorable for a man of 34 yrs who probably should know better. What were those circumstances? I don't remember. Why? because I was too damn drunk.

Called 911 on myself and I got no medical coverage yet at work.

But in keeping with the spirit of this thread, that experience has sorta made me re-evaluate what I think the meaning of life is....and stuff. Maybe there actually is a god� or some sorta higher power at work. Or maybe billions of years of evolution and perfecting and re-perfecting the process are at work on my busted-up knee which (for the most part) seems to ne healing.

So what am I doing now? Relaxin' watching some tube, listenin to tunes. Recouperating.

The purpose of life?

� Take it easy.
� Take care of yourself (yeah I kinda messed-up on that one recently).
� Be cool to each other.
� Acquire knowledge in whatever tickles your fancy because there's all kindsa' cool stuff to take-in in life.
� Don't sweat the small stuff (and it's all small stuff).

(please keep in mind this could just be the super-powerful prescription med's I'm taking talking)

MikeM

[thePurpleGiant]

This thread is great, I'm having a good read. Unfortunately I don't think I;m quite literate enough to contribute what I'd be trying to say

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What is the purpose of purpose in thinking that our purpose is pleasing God

LOL!! Sorry, I just found the whole purpose of purpose of purpose line a little funny

Continue on.

[yakkiebah]

why limit yourself to the idea of only one purpose?

[sambeau]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
why limit yourself to the idea of only one purpose?

There is either no purpose or there is purpose. Purpose is surely naturally plural. Purpose like tasks can surely alway be broken down into sub-purposes.

The question is - what is the big question?

[3gg3]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
I believe the purpose of life is to please God.

Reminds me of my wife's first job, in a Catholic hospital. Each shift started with a broadcast prayer, "O God, blah, blah blah". It was invariably met with many rolleyes and a mass rejoinder, "Oh, God!" I think their (nurses', doctors') purpose was just to get through the shift. The purpose of their purpose, I suppose, was the relief of suffering, other such Hippocaratic stuff.