Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JCPRuckus t1_iu5hwti wrote

It isn't. That's the point they're making. We're just animals. Our basic purpose is to survive long enough to breed and help our offspring survive long enough to breed in turn. Everything else is stuff we make up, because we accidentally became too capable of abstract thought to just be satisfied doing the basic stuff, ironically in an attempt to make us better at doing the basic stuff.

3

SomeDudeist t1_iu5jnqf wrote

I think the universe is more than just a mechanical device. If the purpose of life was simply to reproduce then we might as well have just stayed single celled organisms. But then we wouldn't be growing or evolving.

0

JCPRuckus t1_iu5mc79 wrote

>I think the universe is more than just a mechanical device. If the purpose of life was simply to reproduce then we should have just stayed single celled organisms. But then we wouldn't be growing or evolving.

Or... Multicelled organisms had some sort of advantage over single-celled organisms, and it is all just the result of ongoing mechanical processes and a bit of chance over a long enough period of time.

You're dipping into philosophy. Which, again, is part of the extra stuff, not the basic. Your opinions don't change the objective facts of what life's basic functions are. Ability to reproduce is part of what defines what life is at the most basic level... Even single-celled organisms reproduce.

2

SomeDudeist t1_iu5ncw3 wrote

You can reduce life to the basic function of reproducing but that doesn't mean the purpose of life is to reproduce. I'm making a distinction between the process of a function and the purpose of a function. Reproducing is a process of life but the purpose of life is simply to be alive.

I've been talking about philosophy from the start. I'm not sure you can talk about purpose in the sense I'm talking about without philosophy.

0

Tmaster95 t1_iu5yq0o wrote

Yes, the purpose in the sense you are talking about is to be alive which is survival. You can’t survive as a species if you don’t reproduce, so these two go hand in hand. There isn’t anything more to it.

There isn’t anything more mechanical than the universe. To see this realization as something negative is stupid. It is just the rejection of the naive thought that we would need more. We can keep telling ourselves some made up stories and reasons maybe to feel better (in the great picture useless and maybe even counterproductive) but that doesn’t make them real at all.

1

SomeDudeist t1_iu61kcf wrote

I feel like reducing life to reproduction is just ignoring the fact that it's alive. The reason I think the universe is more than mechanical is because it's alive. Or parts of it anyway. Lol

1

Tmaster95 t1_iu67a54 wrote

Being alive is a label invented by humanity to adress constructs and arrangements of matter that can react to its environment and sense things. Being alive doesn’t mean anything and doesn’t change the purpose of anything. Plants are alive. What is their purpose? Survival and reproduction. Many wouldn’t say the universe is alive but I think it could be just to slow to see, still there is no proof for that.

1

JCPRuckus t1_iu6log3 wrote

If life doesn't reproduce then there's no more life. If the purpose of life was to live, and then wink out and leave the universe sterile, then we wouldn't exist to be having this conversation.

I'm not "reducing" life to reproduction. I'm not saying life is reproduction. I'm saying that reproduction is part of the definition of life. So if you don't reproduce, you have missed out on part of the fundamental meaning of being alive.

1