Love that story Joan! Also like that definition of Curmudgeon. I just need to develop my humor more to become a card carrying one.
I agree with greater message by TNT. However it is not fair to conclude beauty is perceived through cultural lens alone. Experiments indicate that appreciation of beauty is biological.
The studies into "beauty" were not about beauty per se but about the process of selecting a quality mate based on symetry of facial features and suitability of secondary sexual traits such as hip ratio for females and V shape for males. These are measurable characteristics, beauty is entirely subjective.
Okay TNT. I dont feel like engaging in polemics right now.
And again I quite agree with your take on purpose.
La vie n'a pas de but et sans raison. La vie n'a aucune signification.
Wonderful Jonathan - I appreciate your insight. Logical. I like logical. Thanks!
Sorry to stir the pot and run out again - I have to work all day. I am interested in reaching some conclusions.
We are most likely NOT here as a requirement of some other force.
there WAS no purpose and no reason for us to be here.
The process of human existence is changing -it does not stay the same.
With COGNITION we perceive that our condition is changing positive (for the most part), the struggle for survival lessens.
With human cognition, the change can be seen as a "progression" to higher orders of complexity.
As an AWARE individual, a CHOICE can be made. To support the progress, to hinder the progress, or not participate.
THE CHOICE in the individual's head, to further support or hinder human progress, by the way they direct their life, can be construed as a subjective purpose.
-we make our purpose.
To be unaware, to not participate, (like an animal) means the individual is one step behind the rest of us.
No subjective purpose leads us to human life being a mechanical process -And since we want that NOT to be true, it's not true. Is that now a valid choice?
I see "good" as adding to the order, building up what exist to higher and higher degrees. Without "good/order building" we go backwards.
So my question to the Nihilists is...
What's your big plan then?
What's your outlook?
Why be good -and why not be a tyrant? (domination is animalistic)
Though not officially a Nihilist, I'll offer my disagreement with your assessment of "good". It has the typical religious/patriarchal/Humanist slant on "good"... "good" from the perspective of ever increasing numbers of Homo sapiens. Yes all the progress you speak of has created a system which favours population increase of Homo sapiens, but at great costs, costs to Homo sapiens quality of life, costs to the ecosystem in its large sense, costs to all other species of animals and plants living wild. We supposedly cognisant Homo sapiens have a name for life forms which grow in numbers beyond sustainability, growth out of order, we cognisant Homo sapiens call it cancer. We cognisant Homo sapiens have developed tunnel vision and think that all increases in our populations is "good".
That is what I challenge you on, your definition of "good", it is oh so old school, old boys club. IF Homo sapiens are as cognisant as you think, we should be able to recognise that quantity over quality is not "good" other than for small-minded purposes such as short-term profits.
To revisit our value system, we need to dump religious values based on superstitions and supernatural, and look at the straight facts of science, we are destroying everything around us, depression is becoming the leading cost to our health care systems in the "progressed" world, it is now estimated that the average westerner will suffer 10 years of bad health before death, and be "retired" for 19 years. That does not look appealing for a majority of Homo sapiens, but of course there is a small clan of Homo sapiens which derive huge financial profits from such large scaled systematic problems.
The obsession with living longer is not "good", it is simply an expression of the religious fear of death, it delays death by extending death. Concurrently, we obsess with living as long as we can, AND we force old folks out of the system, AND we glamorise/adulate artificially maintained youth, creating even more isolation for the elderly. It's kinda like pro-lifers who are only pro-life for the unborn but not for the rest of humanity, it is slightly schizoid.
The objectives I work politically for are a reduction in number of Homo sapiens on Earth, a reduction of fertility rates by at least 10-fold stronger in developed countries than in poor countries since their ecological footprint is so much smaller, an end to life extension funding and life creation funding while instead focusing our medical money and knowledge on increasing QUALITY of life, a massive politico-economic restructuring which would remove power from polluting corporations and place air/water/space QUALITY as driving forces of our society.
Religions-supersitions has been the number one shaping force of culture and civilisation since Egyptians started enslaving workforces to accomplish great tributes to their egos, and enslaving wombs to create all that enormous cheap labour, it's time to reverse that trend and aim our ego-imbibed brains with more reality and less dogma, seeking quality over quantity, reducing medical reliance instead of increased medical reliance.
The best way to advance humanity is to reduce its numbers. Every problem we have caused (and that is almost all the problems that exist) can be solved, or its damages reduced, by a huge reduction in our numbers. How many environmentalists and animal advocates have deliberately had no children? How many, instead, spend all their energy bringing up their children instead of helping solve problems. How many brag how their superior kids will solve all the problems that their parents were too busy breeding to solve?
So from the point of view of the earth and its other inhabitants what is "Good"? Surely not humanity. The world would recover and go on nicely without us.