The Meaning of Life
[INTP]
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Joined
·
3,878 Posts
This is bodaciously awesome btw.
And yet, within this universe walk vessels that are indeed animate. In our short sightedness we barely understand our own existance. In our arrogance we label the universe and pass it off as fact. There's something a bit more at work.
First: existence.
Second: your assertion that a bit more at work is as unsubstantiated as the assertion that nothing is. Because it is you who proposes something more (a sentience to the universe in addition to its corporeality) - whereas we who claim the universe exists only physically claim nothing but what is directly observable - the burden of proof is on you.
In addition I detect a slight whiff of arrogance to your post.
Well so too would be the arrogance of the human race in adopting materialistic views. Even if such arrogance is indeed the main reason for those views' being held, they still need to be addressed directly. However, the reason for your arguing that the universe is not purely material appears to be the vary fact such a view is borne of arrogance. This leads to a contradiction: you argue that arrogance of the proponent both is and is not a valid reason for doubting his theory.
Going back to your original argument, am I correct in assuming the way of the INTP is to provide an argument, and then present a case by case or contextual point by point, either in the realm of reaffirmation to said contextual point or through assertation? Would this not be the way to present an argument?
And more importantly, could this be presented as 'tug of war of ideas'.
how would this link up to the INTP mindset of two people doing this instead of one?
Or for that matter in a group?
Depends on what you project onto it.
This one gets it. What style of speech pattern are you using?
To clarify:
In that argument you clearly establish that the arrogance of the proponent of an argument is sufficient grounds for dismissing his view. I say dismissing and not doubting because your statement "There's something a bit more at work." is entirely unqualified - it is passed off as fact.
At this point your recourse would be to claim that shortsightedness is grounds for the dismissal of an idea. However, I would think that if I called you shortsighted as well as arrogant you would dismiss both as an "irrelevant" attack, thus fully invalidating your original dismissal of the materialistic argument.
I understand little of what you mean to say by "am I correct in assuming the way of the INTP is to provide an argument, and then present a case by case or contextual point by point, either in the realm of reaffirmation to said contextual point or through assertation? Would this not be the way to present an argument?" and would like to play the "irrelevant" card as that does not address the arguments about the universe at hand.
In this statement you flatly assert that the universe possesses more than merely a material existence. You justify this claim by claiming that humans are shortsighted and arrogant and for that reason their labeling the perceived material nature of the universe as a universal property and truth is mistaken.
In that argument you clearly establish that the arrogance of the proponent of an argument is sufficient grounds for dismissing his view. I say dismissing and not doubting because your statement "There's something a bit more at work." is entirely unqualified - it is passed off as fact.
In this statement you claim that the arrogance of the proponent of an argument is not sufficient grounds for dismissing his argument as it constitutes an "irrelevant" ad hominem attack. I agree. However, in saying this you contradict yourself as the arrogance of the human race was used as sufficient grounds to dismiss its material view of the universe.
At this point your recourse would be to claim that shortsightedness is grounds for the dismissal of an idea. However, I would think that if I called you shortsighted as well as arrogant you would dismiss both as an "irrelevant" attack, thus fully invalidating your original dismissal of the materialistic argument.
This has left me somewhat confused. Your bringing my MBTI type into the discussion is irrelevant. My original argument is that the burden of proof lies on those who propose a sentient universe, and I had outlined that the reason for this was that their view extends beyond current empirical observation.
I understand little of what you mean to say by "am I correct in assuming the way of the INTP is to provide an argument, and then present a case by case or contextual point by point, either in the realm of reaffirmation to said contextual point or through assertation? Would this not be the way to present an argument?" and would like to play the "irrelevant" card as that does not address the arguments about the universe at hand.
Joined
·
596 Posts
Debate? I don't know what there is to debate. First you asked a question - Nobody understood. What should we do about it? It's your job to explain what your question means. Your response to Lara didn't explain much.
Do you expect us to just accept this? Give us proof. It isn't even a matter of us accepting it - Give us enough information that we might at least hypothetically answer your question!
EDIT: What he said. ^
It would seem that what I see as intuitive is very different from that of INTPs. We will meet again, hopefully next time I can be clear in my objective. However, thankyou for the info on your type, it finally shed some light on how you guys think.
The "meaning of life" has no spiritual or religious bounds. The true meaning of life , in a nutshell, is to overpopulate. Why? Because we're a cancer. When Earth becomes a, the United States will dissipate to the next habitat simply because of our destructive needs.
We're also innovative and medicine comes straight to mind. Back in the old days, the life expectancy was lower and consequent. Families normally had two generations alive in their adolescence.
Why do we wage wars? Why do we kill "undesirables"? For the simple reason: those people were an infection contaminates (no offense.) and acting like white blood cells with world policing.
But most of all, why do we crave individuality(aside from the obvious) Individuality is a crock either way in the sense of being unique. A girlfriend reinforces our complexes to help us through out personal doubting and deprecation.
We're also innovative and medicine comes straight to mind. Back in the old days, the life expectancy was lower and consequent. Families normally had two generations alive in their adolescence.
Why do we wage wars? Why do we kill "undesirables"? For the simple reason: those people were an infection contaminates (no offense.) and acting like white blood cells with world policing.
But most of all, why do we crave individuality(aside from the obvious) Individuality is a crock either way in the sense of being unique. A girlfriend reinforces our complexes to help us through out personal doubting and deprecation.
Joined
·
1,004 Posts
I would describe humanity as cancer as well. Cancer kills slow, but when allied with other diseases, it is much more dangerous...
To the 3rd paragraph: More like we think we police the world. Cue memories of that Discovery Channel show about Hitler...
If the meaning of life, the universe and everything is 42, then the answer to life must be 14. :laughing:
Joined
·
596 Posts
That's only if you assume the value of life, the universe and everything to be equal. :tongue:
Joined
·
1,004 Posts
Proportionally speaking: life > universe > everything
We assume at the start it is all equal (14, 14, 14). After a bit of figuring it comes out to around (1, 19.5, 21.5) in my terms. :crazy:
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Join the discussion
