Do you think, the meaning of life can be found through science?
| Yes | 40 | |
| No | 69 |
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[
Report Post
]
Comments ( 45
)
-
NotStrangeBird
The word 'meaning' is a big red flag and is very subjective. In the context that you are using it, I don't think you can use science to find the meaning of anything.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
dirtybirdy
-
q25t
This question relies on two things, whether there is meaning to life in the first place and also what the meaning is.
Assuming there is meaning to life, if it turns out to be that our purpose is to discover the universe's mysteries, then science will most likely have played a key role in discovering this. However, if we find meaning in something like expression or the very idea of consciousness, then science probably wouldn't have been involved as philosophy seems more likely to find these.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
howaminotmyself
"What does it mean?" Cannot be answered by science alone. Science seeks to learn the "how" and not the "why."
Imagine the four year old who continually asks "why" to every response you give him. No response will cease his line of questioning.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
Navel
I think, "the meaning of life" wasn't a choice choice to describe what I mean. I don't mean the question: "Is there an intention behind life?" but moreover: "How should we spend our life?"
Referring to the example of my four year old: With every question he gains more knowledge until he will know about things which may seem like unexplainable mysteries today. Somewhere his line of questioning will reach a point, where it's harder to get answers, because no one knows them and he will have to find them himself.
What interests me, are the questions: "Is there some kind of limit, where it's not possible to find new explanations based on empirical facts although there are many questions left?" And in case there isn't one: "Is it possible to answer any/all questions in finite time, whereby the line of questioning would end?"
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
handsignals
-
-
-
yesnomaybeso
-
-
kingofcarrotflowers
-
Terence_the_viking
-
RomeoDeMontague
Yes and it already has. The meaning of life is to support other life. If you think about it that is the obvious answer. Every organism lives in a way to create other life and die. That life creates more like and they die. When they die they are eaten by scavenger bacteria,animals ecs and make nutrients for new life. Such a stupid purpose it is. A purpose no less though.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
suckonthis9
Yes and no.
Firstly, one needs to know, 'what is science?', as some people have a misunderstanding of this.
sci·ence\ˈsī-ən(t)s\
noun
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5 capitalized : archaic : [Divided Oxymoron]
Examples
the science of medicine grew tremendously in the course of the 19th century
Origin: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed.
First use: 14th century
Synonyms: lore, knowledge, wisdomNext, one needs to ask, 'what is not science?'
Some people might argue that art, religion, and the humanities, are not science.
But don't all these things rely on some form of technological innovation? Answer: Yes. These things could not exist without science.So what's left? Answer: Ignorance, misunderstanding, unpredictability and fantasy.
But, ignorance, misunderstanding and unpredictability, can all be predicted using various scientific methodologies.
So what is not science? Answer: fantasy.
The "Meaning of Life", has been codified, and various sciences were the determining factor.
But, did fantasy also play a role? I most certainly used abstract thought processes in this.These are the Rules:
1) Survive in good health.
2) Reproduce; but not to the extent of overpopulation and the detrimental effects thereof.
3) Learn about this Earth / Universe in whichever field(s) of study best suits you.
4) Work smart and efficiently, but a little hard work now and again is probably a good thing too.
5) Be happy, keep a good sense of humour and enjoy the pursuits of life (recreation).
6) Try to get along with others. If you can't get along, graciously walk away or try to negotiate a mutually agreeable separation (friendship, family, love and property, etc.).
7) Be charitable, but not to the point of dependency (A hand up is better than a hand-out).
8) Do not impose your beliefs on others. Healthy discussion / debate is allowable.
9) Live within your means. Try to live a moderate life. Do not overindulge.
10) Be honest with yourself and others. Be polite and courteous with others.
11) Conserve energy and resources. Limit your use of plastics.
12) Be respectful of the natural environment. Do your part to prevent / control the spread of exotic and invasive flora and fauna. Encourage natural biodiversity.
13) Do not submit to corruption and criminal intent.
14) Use violence only in cases of self-defense, last resort or pre-emptive measures.
15) Make a plan. (For all applicable points above).
16) I freely admit that I have not fulfilled all of the above (to the letter), but that I try to do my best.Any person is welcome to challenge the Rules. Any person is also welcome to change, make additions to, make deletions from, or otherwise alter or modify the Rules (for improvement thereof), with the strict proviso that ithe Rules should be ideally Universally acceptable to All persons, and that, this is done in accordance with a majority consensus in any administrative region. (This would then be acknowledged in that particular administrative region only).
Any person is also challenged to produce a better set of rules, with the proviso above, should they disagree with the Rules. They will do this of their own accord and expense, then share this with the human inhabitants of Planet Earth.
Amendments to the Rules pending...Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
et12356
-
-
-
suckonthis9
Incorrect.
What we will need to do, is to re-think Philosophy as a whole.
I now understand the actual nature of the Universe, and as a consequence of this, it turns out that we were ALL incorrect, myself included.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
et12356
First, how is it incorrect? You could start a religion based on anything. And Second, it's your opinion that my comment is incorrect. Third, I did not say "We need to start a religion on this." Then you said, "Incorrect, what we will need to do is...." All I said was that it was enough instruction to start a religion on. If I am guessing your motives correctly, and you're trying to actually do good by saying this. That's adorable. I don't mean that sarcastically. It's actually adorable. Also, what is your understanding of the nature of the universe?
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
suckonthis9
All religions have an underlying Philosophy.
What I have discovered, radically changes everyone's Philosophy, whether they are religious, or whether they are not religious.
It is my opinion that we were all incorrect, not just you. I include myself in this.
My understanding of the Universe, is that we have been 'looking' (more like sensing) it backwards, but there is more to it than this. We have also made understanding the actual nature of the Universe far more complex than it needs to be (anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence could understand this). I have also discovered a 'hidden' part of the Universe, which is all around us, if you know how and where to look (again this is not complex). I am also in communication with a Very Highly Advanced Technological Civilisation (VHATC-L2), as a result and consequence of this discovery. We are not alone in this Universe! There are also many other aspects to this, which would be too lengthy to discuss here.
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
-
myboyfriendsbitch
I'm down with that. How about teaching our offspring to be better than ourselves? We could eliminate at least one human flaw with every generation.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
SchumpetersGale
-
-
[Old Memory]
-
MeOhMyra
I chose "No" because there simply isn't a meaning to life. Each individual decides why their life is worth living.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
Nephew7
Science is a study of what is, we are what-is ..we just cant explain how it happened, if you put no you're retarded.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
Captain_Kegstand
-
SchumpetersGale
Science can't prove to me that the external world exists, because scientific knowledge is secondary to my perception. Science does not address the subjective nature of my consciousness. This is a really simple question, and the answer is no.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
handsomeshooter
-
-
GuessWho
-
GoraIntoDesiGals
The way I see it it's more like the meaninglessness of life will someday be proven by science.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
loopoo
-
Skitzo1
I thought the meaning of life was to procreate and continue the survival of our species as a whole?
If we didn't do this, we wouldn't be around today, and your question couldn't be asked.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
squeallikeasacofpigs
Fuck sake, why does life have to have a "meaning" to it? Just fucking live your life! And science doesn't search for meanings and waffle shit like that. Sciences searches for explanations and understanding. I am a scientist bitch, and we leave all the amateur dramatics to the philosophy students!
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
myboyfriendsbitch
Yes. And so can philosophy, history, mathematics, art, physics, psychology, introspection, and contemplative observance. If you're asking if the meaning of life can be found through one medium, I don't think so.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
disthing
No, because meaning when applied to an abstract concept is subjective. It's not something that can be proven, or indeed tested. It's a question for which there is and never will be a universal, definitive, objective answer.
Of course, you can define the meaning of the English word 'life'. That's about it.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
handsomeshooter
Find your own meaning to YOUR life.An all encompassing 'meaning' that covers several billion people isn't likely is it? This idea has become accepted as fact,as if finding it is all we have left to do..'The meaning of life' is a hypothetical question to evoke thought about our OWN existence.It's personal to yourself innit?
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
[Old Memory]
Do you mean something like procreation? We're her to carry on our genes and ensure the survival of our species? Like the birds and the bees and all that good stuff?
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
Anime7
Perhaps, to some people science is what gives their life meaning, it's what makes them have a purpose in this world. However, some might say that the heart is the true key to finding the meaning of life. After all there are somethings the heart can describe that the mind cannot. Although, the casual observer might just sit back and ask, "why can't we use both to find the meaning?"
There are many ways to get an answer, whether it's by using your mind or your heart.
Comment Hidden ( show )