The Objective Objective of Life

Andrei Ranete

New Member
Here is the diagram of meaning, visualizing the objective objective of humanity:


Meaning of Life.JPG




The most elegant part of this understanding is that it does not assume anything.

Initially, only officially religious people I talked to immediately denied the validity of this understanding, as within it, religion is defined as illogical idea, mistaken belief. While it is understandable that this idea seems biased, it is reasonable when we remember that no other official definition of religion exists. What else could it be defined as? The best attempt at defining religion I am aware of is as belief in a soul and/or life after death. However, even if it may apply on all major religions, and even if we assume it applies on every single minor religion in the world, the point is that an official religion can be easily created, and it could be created without including the idea of soul or alike. This may be pedantic, but it is technically correct. Religion is illogical idea, indeed, per definition. I argue it is the best definition because religion clearly means something and no other definition is better. This is though just a semantic issue, so one must not agree. It may be simply useful to know what I mean by religion to understand what I mean. In any case, religions are illogical ideas, even if one disagrees to define them so.

The apparently opposite life philosophy that would deny this possibility is nihilism, the uncritical assumption that life does not have meaning. So, this includes people who assume the only possible meaning a human can have in life is subjective, as in usually whatever feels right.

This seems to be this philosophy’s greatest problem. This is based on the idea that science does not have to be based on what is considered logical. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the discovery of the benzene compound by someone who had a dream about a snake eating itself (Rocke, 1985). This may be a bizarre exception, but an exception demonstrates it is not true that a hypothesis must be based on evidence to be a useful hypothesis. This means that no idea should be rejected without proof, just as no idea should be accepted without proof. There is no practical difference between the view that only based hypotheses are real hypotheses and that no hypothesis should be denied. This is because, in practice, logic dictates that resources should not be spent on any idea. Indeed, today most hypotheses that are considered scientific are not tested or are barely tested, since we have priorities. The difference is simply that baseless hypotheses should be considered the smallest priorities, instead of not being priorities at all.

To never assume anything is considered the epitome of science, which is why never assuming anything, including the impossibility of something, especially when assuming is unnecessary, is a better scientific understanding. Indeed, I would argue that this is best because this would remind people that their seemingly self-evident beliefs may be wrong, which they often are. Yet, nihilism is somehow perceived as reasonable. Based on what can a human make such assumption? As it is known, no field of science is understood comprehensively. Humanity understands scarcely 5% of all matter in the universe and 95% of it is invisible (NASA Science, 2019; Farnes, 2018). Humanity is clearly not a credible source on this matter.

Yes, it is possible that an invisible unicorn has followed you since your birth, or that an invisible man has watched everything since the universe was born, but they can be ignored as many people always had. Unless you can argue that their possibility, no matter how remote, matters to humanity, there is no reason to care about them. The possibility of an objective objective cannot be ignored, partly due to the desire of many people to be always right, yet more importantly because no decision can be objective without this possibility. Without an objective objective, religious people may believe that the end is nigh, for example, and so carelessly use resources. This can result in a worse life for everyone. And this is just one way religion is immoral. The book explains more precisely how religion is the cause of most human problems, and how critical thinking can solve them, often instantly. One may argue that if humanity were purely logical, such an intermediate objective objective would be pointless. Yes, this theory does not explain an ultimate objective objective, but an intermediate one which is equally crucial. Nevertheless, in the ideal scenario where at least the majority thinks critically, this objective idea would still be best. Pragmatically, humanity would act as if they acknowledge my theory anyway, and scientifically, or philosophically, my theory is best as it assumes the least. It probably should be noted that science is simply defined as knowledge, wisdom, in the theory, while religion is, again, defined as the opposite. These definitions may seem oversimplified, but I think that is because the contemporary definitions are overcomplicated. Another important point to realize is that whether we can imagine something to be possible, is irrelevant. Presumably, ancient people could not imagine how most of current technology works, yet it would have been clearly wrong to assume current technology is impossible. Just like something must be proven, indicated, right to be considered right, something must be demonstrated wrong to be considered wrong. Otherwise it is simply an unproven idea.

To recapitulate, the possibility of an objective objective, as long as it is not disproved, is essential to human life. Perhaps this has been what the reader has been thinking: The question is not essential! Yet, without it, the only reason to live, the only reason to act, is emotion and/or imagination, which are clearly subjective, based on whims. Therefore I believe it is essential. A human may argue they do not need anything else, but clearly the majority of people today care about it as a lack of sense is the main reason why pure science is considered a limited understanding of the world. The fact that there is an objective objective is unproven, the fact that we should search for it is rational because an essential question rationally requires answering, and if for no other reason, because there is nothing else to do. In an ideal world, the objective objective is practically useless, but still technically correct. In the current world, the objective objective is all it needs to solve almost all its problems, and eventually perhaps all problems. Indeed, I would argue that even if we assume this idea is technically incorrect, it should still be promoted.

How is this understanding essential to humanity? Because it describes objective morality, one thing humanity always claimed to desire. If an objective objective may exist, then it means it must be what we must do, per definition. Since we do not know it, we must find it, or find whether it exists. Therefore, even though there is no reason to believe humans have any inherent value, humans have potential value due to the objective objective. Humans have value because they can study and so eventually discover the objective objective. This is a utilitarian ethic that is objective and as such can objectively answer any moral question. The most basic examples are that murder, destruction and theft are immoral if they slow down humanity’s progress toward the objective objective, so they are usually immoral. As such, the most moral action is research, exploration, critical thinking. For now, I avoid publicly answering controversial moral dilemmas because people may not like the answers, and therefore deny this understanding no matter how true it is. In any case, there is nothing to worry about from a moral perspective considering this theory as humans have value, be it potential. Potential value is not the same as certain value, but is better than no value. For example, if it seems like slavery is moral according to this theory, that is not true. Slavery is immoral, not because there is something inherently wrong with it, but because humans tend to be more productive, especially in an intellectual way, when they are free.

If the objective of life and the objective of the universe seem like completely different notions, it should be mentioned that life is not defined, despite attempt (The Science Network, 2011). The reason for this may be our lack of words, or it can be that there is no inherent difference between so-called life and the rest of matter. The possibility of the meaning of life does not necessarily mean that what is considered life has meaning, yet the universe may have a meaning, existence may have a meaning, and life, as it is known, through it.

Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with believing an objective meaning to life, an objective meaning to existence, and therefore to life as well, may exist. If it may exist, rationally means we should try to find it, even if we have no or little clue now. The little clue we may have is science. Obviously, not all actions progress science equally, so some actions are better than others. Therefore, this understanding would grant morality to science, a utilitarian morality not very distinct from the one which already exists. The primary difference is that this morality is objectively based in the logical inferences of a possibility. Therefore, humanity can have a morality based on science. This could of course revolutionize humanity, if the objective objective, or lack thereof, was not assumed to be understood due to religion, be it an official one or nihilism.
 

WarK

Active Member
I haven't read any of that, just looked at the diagram and laughed.

If aliens could exist then anything could exist. Seriously? Brilliant argument.

Other thing that made me laugh was how you don't have a choice, the diagram always flows to "I don't know".

Yeah, waste of time.
 

Andrei Ranete

New Member
The argument is not really that if aliens could exist then anything could exist. It is that, if you believe it is possible for aliens to exist, as many people do since there is little reason to think we would be special, then why could not an objective objective exist? There is as much evidence that aliens may exist as that an objective objective may exist. Perhaps it may seem less likely, but there is equal amount of empirical evidence for both possibilities.

The diagram always flows to I do not know because, as far as I am aware, nobody has evidence for or against it. Do you have any?

I do think not giving it a chance is unwise as the diagram is just a simplified explanation.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." You decided to participate in the second step.
 

DanDare

New Member
I sit at the default position that there is no objective objective until one can be shown to exist.
I have no need for an objective objective or even the possibility of one, so your comment "To recapitulate, the possibility of an objective objective, as long as it is not disproved, is essential to human life." is, as a universal statement, false.
 
The first thing I notice is that you immediately switch from a double objective meaning of humanity to "A meaning of life" "Life and "Humanity" are two very different words. I think the reason that you did this is that you were to lazy to provide a specific definition for "life".

Im not even sure "What is the meaning of life/humanity" is a valid expression in proper use of the English language.
 

Andrei Ranete

New Member
I sit at the default position that there is no objective objective until one can be shown to exist.
I have no need for an objective objective or even the possibility of one, so your comment "To recapitulate, the possibility of an objective objective, as long as it is not disproved, is essential to human life." is, as a universal statement, false.

It strongly seems that the main reasons for why people disagree with this understanding are pre-existing assumptions. Why would the default position be that no objective objective exists until one is shown to exist? Is the default position that nothing is beyond the observable universe until it is observed? Is the default position that there is no way to build a flying vehicle until one is built? Or, in the given example, is the default position that aliens do not exist until they are found? No. The logical and “default” position is that you do not know, if you do not know. Again, I am inclined to think this is problematic to understand only due to the assumptions that a meaning of life is impossible and/or useless, so pre-existing and illogical assumptions.

You are either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding what I mean by essential, for after this statement I do explain it. Firstly, from an idealistic perspective, one cannot act objectively without an objective objective. So, the objective objective, as presented in the diagram, is essential if you want to be purely objective. Of course, if you only care about personal preferences, which is practically being religious, then this is inessential.

Secondly, from a pragmatic perspective, it would be best for the majority of people to agree with this, not only objectively speaking, but most probably even according to the majority’s subjective ideals. A humanity that agrees on one objective objective is a humanity that would unite, that would cooperate. In contrast with official religions, this is logically inferable and entirely consistent. In contrast with nihilism, including the assumption that objectives can only be subjective, this is something everyone can agree on as it has all the good parts of religion and science. It is a scientific answer to the question that many consider fundamental: What is the meaning of life?

I forgot to mention that I wanted to explain further, however I reached a limit with this post. In any case, if it was too long, it would have been even less likely for someone to read it, and this is a big problem. This is like trying to explain what is to be or why 1+1=2. It is or should be easy to understand, but explaining it is difficult. I find it almost strange that people are not even interested in understanding this, yet it is clearly because, like you, they assume that it is impossible and/or useless.
 

Andrei Ranete

New Member
The first thing I notice is that you immediately switch from a double objective meaning of humanity to "A meaning of life" "Life and "Humanity" are two very different words. I think the reason that you did this is that you were to lazy to provide a specific definition for "life".

Im not even sure "What is the meaning of life/humanity" is a valid expression in proper use of the English language.

You failed to read this paragraph: "If the objective of life and the objective of the universe seem like completely different notions, it should be mentioned that life is not defined, despite attempt (The Science Network, 2011). The reason for this may be our lack of words, or it can be that there is no inherent difference between so-called life and the rest of matter. The possibility of the meaning of life does not necessarily mean that what is considered life has meaning, yet the universe may have a meaning, existence may have a meaning, and life, as it is known, through it." The reason I do not define life is because that appears to be impossible. No, life and humanity are not very different words, semantically. Humanity is part of life. If life has an objective meaning, then humanity has an objective meaning. There is no significant difference.

"What is the meaning of life" is a grammatically correct and perfectly understandable expression. You are talking nonsense.
 
I just can't understand what is meant by "meaning of life". I don't think it really fits with the way English has been spoken in the last several hundred years. I suspect the phrase originates from a poor translation of another language but I am probably wrong.

What is meaning of glass of coke?
 

trokolisz

New Member
Basically if there is no evidence supporting that "A" is "B", then is is useless to say "A" is "B".

Also there is already so much "conclusion" what the meaning of life is, so i don't give any of it any more meaning than to the others.
(reproduction, happiness, spreading happiness, devotion to a deity, achieving enlightenment, contribute to society, earning a happy afterlife, being remembered in history)
Finally: meaning would be to achieve some objective, but as far as i know,birth and death is the only experiences shared by all human, and saying the meaning of life is "B", and everyone's life who didn't achieved "B" is meaningless, also not a tough i light to entertain.
So saying there is no objective meaning is supported by my experience, it is a conclusion im happy with (even if it doesn't matter in the bigger picture), and there is no reason to think otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Top