Both "the meaning" and "the life" were not intended to be in the first place to be asked about later. In other words, asking about the meaning of life is as stupid as talking about the intentions of the bad guy in a movie. It is what it is.
first of all, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people! 2. which movie doesn't talk about the intentions or at least motivation of the bad guy? most of the time characterization takes on this task. 3.if this post of urs has to do with ur own frustration with finding meaning for life, try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy
hmmm. wise comment:) 1. I agree on the latter, however the question still remains stupid. if the meaning is found another question arises such as "so what?" or "that's it?"
2. yeah but it's the story which forms the characteristics not the characters themselves. you could ask why the story goes like this. but if you ask why this guy became bad, I'd say "to let them have a movie to make!" that's why the intentions really doesn't matter. what matters is the intentions of the movie makers.
3. this logotherapy thing was sure interesting. next time remind me to talk about it on the moon! but I have to admit that by the time I wrote this post I was disappointed in life because I felt there is no end to it in every dimension - so to speak. and I was thinking if by any chance the answer is to be found then the whole world would be as meaningless as a stupid batman movie or something!
but now I'm pretty happy with what I have to say about the question. relax! there is no meaning:)
our inability to answer a question doesn't make that question stupid. rather us perhaps! 2. never seen a movie in which the intention/motivation of the bad guy remained unknown... 3." and I was thinking if by any chance the answer is to be found then the whole world would be as meaningless as a stupid batman movie or something!" reminded of this Gaarder quote: "If our brain was simple enough for us to understand it, we would be so stupid we wouldn't be able to understand it after all." ;) anyway since the meaning and its search are subjective, one should be able to find a justified one not feel all so disappointed.. Nevertheless, if you're "relaxed" now, I rest my case :D
1. if anyone cannot and will not answer a question, then what's the point of asking it? and the inability to answer such question makes us bounded not stupid. (if everyone is stupid then the meaning of the word "stupid" is changed)
2. basically if you ask about the intentions of a movie character, the answer is the same regardless of the movie or the character. it's not the intentions we are seeking, it's the story in which intentions are defined. e.g. Nagato (although he's not a bad guy really!) kills people. why? to bring peace. why? because he believes if everyone knew pain there will be no war. why? so that Naruto could compete with his ideas. why? to show that love conquers all. why? to highlight the ability of Naruto. why? to have a sophisticated story to tell. that's where it all ends in every movie. the point is: you can simply justify the intentions of the bad guy, but by doing that, you won't get a single step closer to the purpose of the movie. i.e. the intentions of the bad guy does not really make him act, in fact he does whatever "the story" wants him to do.
I guess my post was not as I expected after all. the bad guy metaphor was too vague to explain the idea.
where I said "you won't get a single step closer to the purpose of the movie" I meant the real purpose is to tell a story and it's not linked to the intentions although they may seem relevant. the real purpose of all movie are the same regardless of their elements. so Naruto never finds out that he is just an imaginary hero.
I'd have to agree with the vagueness! but your 2nd point made me better understand how exactly "meaning" is a subjective notion. because the way I would've answered the "why"s would be: ... .. . because he believes if everyone knew pain there will be no war. why? because he got to know great pain at an early age and wants to put a stop to what caused it,i.e. war. and that per se is the meaning of his life in its Franklian/existential definition, since it-quoting from Wikipedia- satisfies all of its defining attributes: (1) creating a work, i.e. killing people! (2) experiencing something, i.e. pain or encountering someone; and (3) by the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering, i.e. antiwar stance. Also about your 1st point, we may be bounded to answer this question; yet that's not reason enough to dismiss it as stupid. As Einstein said "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." We must try rather to elevate our thinking than downgrade the question!
you can backtrack the events in one's life in order to find a Franklian meaning for it. but unlike the life of a person which includes several three-attribute sets, IMO the meaning of "life itself" has to be free of all eventualities. the meaning WAS there just before the life existed. in other words, no matter how many times you look back into the past to find clues about the reasons and meanings, there's still more. Both Gaarder and Einstein quotes were about the same fact: a part can't contain the whole. and I think the "meaning of life" is just one of those things. it's not an answer, it's the whole existence. so this question has two answers: 1. if the meaning is related to its purpose which forces (or suggests) us to follow, then it doesn't have one. 2. if the meaning is related to the reason why do we have to live on, then one can find many.
oh, if you're looking for the meaning of "life itself", I ,as a disciple of absurdism, more than agree with you. Relax, there is none. but your movie analogy defeats its purpose, kinda misleading...
9 comments:
first of all, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people!
2. which movie doesn't talk about the intentions or at least motivation of the bad guy? most of the time characterization takes on this task.
3.if this post of urs has to do with ur own frustration with finding meaning for life, try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy
hmmm. wise comment:)
1. I agree on the latter, however the question still remains stupid. if the meaning is found another question arises such as "so what?" or "that's it?"
2. yeah but it's the story which forms the characteristics not the characters themselves. you could ask why the story goes like this. but if you ask why this guy became bad, I'd say "to let them have a movie to make!" that's why the intentions really doesn't matter. what matters is the intentions of the movie makers.
3. this logotherapy thing was sure interesting. next time remind me to talk about it on the moon! but I have to admit that by the time I wrote this post I was disappointed in life because I felt there is no end to it in every dimension - so to speak. and I was thinking if by any chance the answer is to be found then the whole world would be as meaningless as a stupid batman movie or something!
but now I'm pretty happy with what I have to say about the question.
relax! there is no meaning:)
our inability to answer a question doesn't make that question stupid. rather us perhaps!
2. never seen a movie in which the intention/motivation of the bad guy remained unknown...
3." and I was thinking if by any chance the answer is to be found then the whole world would be as meaningless as a stupid batman movie or something!" reminded of this Gaarder quote: "If our brain was simple enough for us to understand it, we would be so stupid we wouldn't be able to understand it after all." ;)
anyway since the meaning and its search are subjective, one should be able to find a justified one not feel all so disappointed..
Nevertheless, if you're "relaxed" now, I rest my case :D
1. if anyone cannot and will not answer a question, then what's the point of asking it? and the inability to answer such question makes us bounded not stupid. (if everyone is stupid then the meaning of the word "stupid" is changed)
2. basically if you ask about the intentions of a movie character, the answer is the same regardless of the movie or the character. it's not the intentions we are seeking, it's the story in which intentions are defined. e.g. Nagato (although he's not a bad guy really!) kills people.
why?
to bring peace.
why?
because he believes if everyone knew pain there will be no war.
why?
so that Naruto could compete with his ideas.
why?
to show that love conquers all.
why?
to highlight the ability of Naruto.
why?
to have a sophisticated story to tell.
that's where it all ends in every movie.
the point is: you can simply justify the intentions of the bad guy, but by doing that, you won't get a single step closer to the purpose of the movie. i.e. the intentions of the bad guy does not really make him act, in fact he does whatever "the story" wants him to do.
I guess my post was not as I expected after all. the bad guy metaphor was too vague to explain the idea.
3. I'm speechless :)
where I said "you won't get a single step closer to the purpose of the movie" I meant the real purpose is to tell a story and it's not linked to the intentions although they may seem relevant.
the real purpose of all movie are the same regardless of their elements. so Naruto never finds out that he is just an imaginary hero.
I'd have to agree with the vagueness! but your 2nd point made me better understand how exactly "meaning" is a subjective notion. because the way I would've answered the "why"s would be:
...
..
.
because he believes if everyone knew pain there will be no war.
why?
because he got to know great pain at an early age and wants to put a stop to what caused it,i.e. war.
and that per se is the meaning of his life in its Franklian/existential definition, since it-quoting from Wikipedia- satisfies all of its defining attributes: (1) creating a work, i.e. killing people! (2) experiencing something, i.e. pain or encountering someone; and (3) by the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering, i.e. antiwar stance.
Also about your 1st point, we may be bounded to answer this question; yet that's not reason enough to dismiss it as stupid. As Einstein said "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." We must try rather to elevate our thinking than downgrade the question!
you can backtrack the events in one's life in order to find a Franklian meaning for it. but unlike the life of a person which includes several three-attribute sets, IMO the meaning of "life itself" has to be free of all eventualities. the meaning WAS there just before the life existed.
in other words, no matter how many times you look back into the past to find clues about the reasons and meanings, there's still more.
Both Gaarder and Einstein quotes were about the same fact:
a part can't contain the whole.
and I think the "meaning of life" is just one of those things.
it's not an answer, it's the whole existence.
so this question has two answers:
1. if the meaning is related to its purpose which forces (or suggests) us to follow, then it doesn't have one.
2. if the meaning is related to the reason why do we have to live on, then one can find many.
oh, if you're looking for the meaning of "life itself", I ,as a disciple of absurdism, more than agree with you. Relax, there is none.
but your movie analogy defeats its purpose, kinda misleading...
Post a Comment