New topic: Why bother giving a damn?

[Cosmonautical]

We all wonder ceaselessly about things that seem deep but really only matter if you care. So why bother caring about wisdom? Is there some specific set of personal revelations that we are alotted in life, that we can achieve? Is it a competition?

People argue over minutiae, mostly just to improve their inter-personal skills. They build judgements and use arguments to evaluate them. I get the feeling that we're doing it to no particular end, though.

If you have an afterlife and judgement of your creator to back you up, you could say that it's all a test. But where would the fun be in that? Seems have come to be as we are only so we can be, and interact, and cause things to happen. That seems to be the one concrete way of determining that we're alive: we have thoughts and we act on them.

I'm not preaching apathy, and I don't really consider pointlessness overwhelming. I'm really just asking why people put so much weight into things, usually ideas that mean nothing outside of the human mind.

Your thoughts? What's the point in getting worked up over it? Why ask the questions that have no answers?

[PK FIRE!]

To get a reaction from others perhaps? There is also the possiblity that a large enough group could come to an intresting conclusion. Also there is the possiblity of searching for answers for simple enjoyment or amusment. I may not be that great of a philosipher but I enjoy playing devil's advicate when debating with my real life friends. Granted I tend to get thrashed horribly as my opponet is getting ready to go back to college and get his degree and become a liesenced thearpist.

- You stupid dog.

[Bomby]

Giving a damn in life is very much optional. What happened is that somewhere along the line, humans decided that we like existing. So we gave a damn in order to find better and/or more enjoyable ways to exist. Giving a damn caused all these houses, extravagant meals, arts, sciences, etc.

On the other hand, giving a damn caused all the rigid social structures, menial jobs, and other stressful situations. If we never gave a damn, we really wouldn't have to deal with the stress these things can cause. That stress is part of what causes people to get worked up over things that are really complete abstractions. What is war, really, but saying "my nation's ways are better than yours'" to the point of violence? It's an unfortunate part of human nature that I'll readily admit I fall victim to.

So life would be less stressful if we never gave a damn, but a lot more boring, too. Of course, who knows? Maybe I'm just too used to the constant stimuli provided by today's culture.

[Deku Trii]

This topic reminds me of Ecclesiastes and how much I like that book.

[Lurch1982]

Response later.

Originally Posted by Bomby

What is war, really, but saying "my nation's ways are better than yours'" to the point of violence?

Eh, disagree with this statement (though I know it really doesn't have much to do with your point). Historically, war has been mostly a battle for resources. War over ideals is a relatively new construct, and even then is mostly used to mask it for what it is: resource control. Strong conquering the weak doesn't really seem like a true "my ways are better than yours" conflict.

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by The Bureau

What's the point in getting worked up over it? Why ask the questions that have no answers?

Not a day goes by when I don't ask myself the same questions.

[Kil'jaeden]

That we ask questions about everything, even seemingly pointless questions about meaning or existance, is what separates us from the beasts. I'm not going to say that we are completely detached from them, because denying the base part of humanity would be stupid. But everything great about us comes from the fact that we still want more even after our basic needs have been met. However, all of our vices also come from this. I consider it the price of consciousness and free will.

I think we ask questions with no answer out of hope that there is an answer. Sure, it makes for mental exercise and social interaction, but if that's all it were, we wouldn't have hundreds of religions and billions of believers. Maybe it's that arbitrariness is scary. Things have to be explained, or they just don't fit in the human mind. The main idea behind many religions comes down to "everything happens for a reason". Take away the differences in afterlife, dogma, and such, and you still have this. Why we need reasons, I think it comes down to us doing things for a reason. Most of the time, people do things with something in mind. This mindset applied to everything else would lead one to believe that everything else must be like that too. And, if we can't tell what the reason might be, surely there is one.

[Cosmonautical]

^ But greatness can only be recognised by a willing party. It isn't great if you don't consider it so. If greatness is another construct of the mind, why consider things great? To me, it seems more like another personal lie, something to use to comfort yourself because you've grown to feel the need for comfort. If that need is circumstantial, then great things cannot be universal. And the pursuit of great things lessens them, makes them menial. In possessing them, they become part of the mundane.

And then, it sounds like the pursuit is the important part of it, like another lesson. Maybe then, the act of pursuing great things is just an action that contents our young minds, so older men can wonder over their past life in their contented indifference. Who truly knows contentedness that seeks greatness? It seems that acceptance of life is more our ultimate aim than greatness.

Originally Posted by Deku Trii

This topic reminds me of Ecclesiastes and how much I like that book.

Ecclesiastes is interesting, but it really fails to consider if there were no god, or if god were irrelevent to us. Or, it uses the term god interchangable with existence, as I see it. Being that god is really used in most identical context to modern concepts of existing.

It seems to me that the greatest ability of man is to control his own perceptions, and decide how he feels about something by controlling those perceptions. After all, what is pain to a man who accepts it, but another triumph?

[Bomby]

Originally Posted by Lurch1982

Historically, war has been mostly a battle for resources. War over ideals is a relatively new construct, and even then is mostly used to mask it for what it is: resource control. Strong conquering the weak doesn't really seem like a true "my ways are better than yours" conflict.

Very true. Though in away this actually adds to the original topic at hand, as one could argue that nobody would have these wars if they simply didn't give a damn about those resources. Of course, it would probably take a nation full of devout Daoists to completely and truly not give a damn enough about resources to start a war if a famine were to occur.

[heh]

i agree in terms of pointless philosophical questions! i don't care what you think the meaning of meaning is bomby!!!11111111111

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by Bomby

Very true. Though in away this actually adds to the original topic at hand, as one could argue that nobody would have these wars if they simply didn't give a damn about those resources. Of course, it would probably take a nation full of devout Daoists to completely and truly not give a damn enough about resources to start a war if a famine were to occur.

Giving a damn about survival (extended to resource allocation) is a little different than giving a damn about, for example, figuring out a higher purpose in life or determining why we're here in the first place.

I mean, yeah, obviously the further you get away from core survival needs the more you can inject a "our way is better than your way" approach. However, the cynical outlook that I have basically mirrors Machiavelli's. You use the "moral" approach to justify your conflict as being something higher than what it actually is, which is ultimately a resource grab.

For example, the colonization and exploration into the "New World" was undertaken with a justification of "bringing the Christian God to the savages" or some other sort of nonsense. Obviously some nations took this to the extreme that crossed the threshold into genocide territory (Spanish), but universally the European colonial powers used the religious orders in their respective countries to get a source of "cheap" exploration on the dime of the Church. Much of the French territory was basically mapped out and more or less established by Jesuits, for example. But the religious colonization was really just a mask for the colonial powers to grab up land rich with resources that was unspoiled. They were racing against other powers to get things like furs, or timber, or tobacco/cotton/sugar. Or in the Spanish's case, the golden treasures of Latin America.

Even a total clod like Hobbes (and don't let anyone fool you, Hobbes was a hamfisted clod) knew that to be effective in an undertaking, the ruler needs some sort of "moral justification" to mask what is essentially a resource grab. I prefer Machiavelli out of the "enlightenment" political philosophers because his approach was practical and realistic. In order for a ruler to be strong, he had to use everything to his advantage, including using things like Religion to control people and push his will by using a "higher authority."

This really isn't to say that all wars fit into this paradigm. Some don't because they really are fought over an ingrained belief that one group is better than the others. One example is the genocide in the former Yugoslavia. African genocide is also a slight example, but resources still drive much of the conflicts (be it diamonds or lack of any sort of resources by one group). Even something like WW2 doesn't really fit with this. The Japanese expansionist rhetoric had numerous references to being chosen people, superior to the rest of mainland Asia, etc, but the fact of the matter is that the bulk of their conquests were driven out of an island nation's need for resources. Specifically: oil and steel sources and production.

[Bomby]

Bah, leave it to me to miss the point entirely.

I'm not going to comment too extensively on the "moral justification of war," but there definitely is inherent truth in it. Another exception to that might be the Communist revolutions throughout the past century, but even that would have its roots in resources, though more in the way they are distributed than an inherent lack in them.

I'd like to revise my stance a bit on the original topic at hand:

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I think that the more abstract questions in life that don't have definite answers don't really come into play with someone until they wonder why they give a damn about the more pragmatic questions. For example, someone wouldn't think about "the meaning of life" until they start to wonder why they choose to stay alive.

[Swordmaster Link]

*shrug*

To quickly answer the question: I guess people need to believe in something -- whether it be a set of principles, a person, whatever -- so that their life becomes meaningful in their lives. Why? Dunno, perhaps that's what makes us different from any other living creature.

[CuccoLady]

Having beliefs, morals, ideals, and all of that fancy stuff that people endlessly squabble about makes life interesting.

If I didn't care about any of the stuff that isn't really worth caring about, then it'd take away that something that just gives life flavor. I find things to amuse me, things to believe, things to value because it makes life interesting. "Oooh, shiny!!" type deal.

So yeah, life would be simpler if we didn't care about a lot of stuff. But would it be as unique/weird/messed up/awesome?

[Loot]

My rebuttal to AI's question? Bah, nobody would care anyway.

[CodenameV]

Me personally, I've accepted that there are questions that we could ask and ask until our face turns blue and we won't come up with any concrete answers. And I'm okay with that. I just don't ask the unanswerable questions, and take life for what it is.

[Darth_Flava]

Ah too much philosophy going on here. I'll stick to my simple answer. Caring about meaningless things makes life less boring.

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by CuccoLady

Having beliefs, morals, ideals, and all of that fancy stuff that people endlessly squabble about makes life interesting.

If I didn't care about any of the stuff that isn't really worth caring about, then it'd take away that something that just gives life flavor. I find things to amuse me, things to believe, things to value because it makes life interesting. "Oooh, shiny!!" type deal.

So yeah, life would be simpler if we didn't care about a lot of stuff. But would it be as unique/weird/messed up/awesome?

Took me forever to feel like saying anything in this topic again. Just want to point out that this kind of logic is circular, and not really an answer. If you didn't care about things being awesome, you wouldn't need that kind of excitement to achieve fulfillment. Seems like a warped perspective, to demand excitement from life, actually.

[Bomby]

To not demand some form excitement from life is, in a way, acting in bad faith, especially if one considers that the other more commonly taken option would be to live a mundane life working, so as to "contribute to society." This is denying the freedom of a human being.

Even if it isn't strictly bad faith as Sartre defined it, it's still a life that is not worth living.

[Metal Man]

Answer: Because I feel like it.

Saying it in any more words than that is a waste of everyone's time.