Talk:Meaning of life/Archive 2

GET THIS TO FA STATUS
This page should have the most upmost scignificance in wikipedia. It is extrodinary well written and address all the issues with the topic. However it is incoherent. A good clean up should fix it.Perhaps we should establish a task list?Jackchen123 (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC

Logical Flaw
The lead in to science states that science does not look for the meaning of life. The it goes on and on about science and the meaning of life. If the first statement is true, doesn't it make sense to delete the entire science section? Aidan Boyle_undertow  talk 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems so FiringRange 10:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this interpretation: The goal of scienctists is not to find the meaning of life, but people (Tolstoy comes to mind) sometimes look to science to try to find answers to questions about the meaning of life, and some scientists study what people find meaningful in their lives, or feel gives their lives meaning. Anarchia 00:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been edited so many times, it has lost its original context. Science can't verify meaning inherent in life, such as if there is a purpose behind it all (such as might be the case if the universe was created by a supernatural being), but it can explore the possible answers to the interpretive questions.  The Transhumanist 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the contradictory passage. The Transhumanist 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV not merely permits requires contradiction when different people have different opinions. A goal of having the article content be self-consistent would be a violation of WP:NPOV when presenting all significant points of view requires presenting flatly contradictory claims. I've restructured this part of the article into sections presenting different points of view and re-inserted the "contradiction". Best, --Shirahadasha 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Today is August 1st
Well, not in my part of the planet, but it is as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Transhumanist, are you going to take out those sources soon, or do you want me to do it tommorow after I'm awake enought to spell tomorrow? --L onging.... 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll comment out the unsourced material as agreed. The Transhumanist 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Synonyms
Questions like "What is the purpose of life?", "What is the reason of life?" and "What is the reason to live?" are in fact synonymous with "What is the meaning of life?", shouldn't this be mentioned at the beginning of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.232.191 (talk) 06:51, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether they are synonymous with the question is itself a matter for philosophical argument. Anarchia 07:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "What is the purpose of life?" is in the lead section, and versions of all the others you posted above are in there too. The "reason to live" question is posed as "purpose in on'es life", while "What is the reason of life?" is the same as "What is the origin of life?" but can also be interpretted as the very same question as "What is the purpose of life?" or even "Why are we here?".  They're all in there.  The 5 questions included are all distinct, and I searched high and low for further contexts of "What is the meaning of life?", but could only find synonymous phrasings of the 5 such as those you just mentioned.  But I'm glad you asked.  Keeps us on our toes.  :-)   &mdash; The Transhumanist   02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Things that can be said about Life
There are a very few things that can be said about Life. Life begin with very simple forms and grew on Earth to more complex forms. The complex forms we find today could not possibly live in the environment of the long past. There had to be an abundance of carbon dioxide before plants could flourish. Then, plants created an abundance of oxygen and animals could flourish. Both plants and animals grew more and more complex over time. The article might entertain this idea of Life creating the environment that more complex Life can live in, and then evolving into more complex life which created an environment for even more complex life, and so on. This idea appears obvious but I don't find a reference for it. 76.211.230.86 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Respect for expertise
I was involved on another page where one or two headstrong undergraduates were trying to overrule several editors with PhDs in the field and specific expertise in the areas involved. "Meaning" or "Meaning in life" (within the context of positive psychology's study of happiness, life satisfaction, engagement, etc.) is my #1 area of interest at present. If I take the time to try to salvage a section of a Wikipedia article that is poorly written (and obviously not written by those in related fields), I do not appreciate having my contributions deleted with no explanation! Contributions from experts are needed in this article and in many other Wikipedia articles, in some cases quite desperately. -Do c t orW  21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I looked at the edit history without realizing that my edits may have been only temporarily deleted, and probably by mistake in an attempt to revert vandalism. -Do c t orW  21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion above which resulted in the temporary removal of all unreferenced material from this page until citations could be found for it. The article was essentially gutted, but there's no defense against policy.  WP:VER was enforced.  It's typical that the person who enforced policy hasn't lifted a finger to help find citations.  I've restored some of the material by finding citations, but have been too busy to work on it recently.  Please feel free to track down citations for the rest, and add each fact as it is cited.  Good luck.  The Transhumanist 05:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that it was you, The Transhumanist, who went on what might be criticized as a rampage and put fact tags all over the article including on sentences that did not warrant them, then offered the "solution" that all the uncited material be commented out by a certain date. Am I not remembering this correctly? I clearly remember thinking how utterly disingenuous that solution was. If I am mistaken, please provide links to the relevant diffs.


 * Regardless, it was a very bad choice to eliminate (comment out) a whole section that had not been controversial (in fact, was the core of the article by any reasonable assessment) just because some fact tags were added (and very injudiciously so in terms of quantity). That kind of solution is not Wikipedia policy.


 * Anyway, I addressed that problem by providing a reference here and there, eliminating weak sections, rephrasing poorly worded sentences that would have required a citation, leaving only a small number of fact tags remaining. You had absolutely no business reverting my work. -Do c t orW  02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Conservation of energy
Conservation of energy states that everything is energy and energy is conserved. The experience of the observer is energy. Energy can not be created or destroyed. There is as much positive energy as there is negative energy. If they canceled each other there would be nothing. Experience is also energy. There is no free energy or perpetual motion device because energy can not be created or destroyed. Since the observer (you) is energy as well, the observers happiness can not be created or destroyed. Happiness, satisfaction, love, pleasure or what ever you call it, can not be created or destroyed, but only changes form where various forms of pleasure are later paid of with various forms of displeasure, pain, suffering etc. Happiness can not be created, the only time people are happy is when they are creating their own doom and are not aware of it. So the happier you are the more unhappy you will be in the future and vice versa.

Object oriented programming
Several decades ago computer scientists have realized that programming is greatly simplified by creating of what is called an object. An object is quite simply, everything. Every code, process, algorithm, function etc. is the same thing, a thing, or an object as called in computer lingo. It is thus greatly simplified to code when everything is treated as the same thing. Similarly in life, everything is the same thing. In other words, everything is alive and everything is equal. Everything is an experience. Because everything is an experience, it doesn't matter who's experience it it, everyone is essentially equal, from the greatest minds in the universe to the Tutsi fly. Nobody's experience is any better or worse that anyone else's because everyone's energy or happinesses are conserved. Since energy is conserved, it doesn't matter who or what you are, everything is conserved. Happiness equates unhappiness.

Entanglement
This coincides with theories of quantum entanglement that everything is the same thing, that everything is connected or entangled. Since everything and everyone is equal, we have a lot in common, we're all the same. We are all experiences and all experiences are related to each other. Time is an illusion just like space. There is no time, it's only an experience of how different physical perceptions relate to each other. There is infinite time and space dimensions and time travel is possible and easy once physical mechanisms of hyperspace or multidimensionality are mastered.

Belief systems
There is nothing physical. Scientists have never been able to find a single atom of physical presence. Matter breaks down into atoms, atoms break down into subatomic particles and so on and so forth. In the end, there really is no matter, only information. Belief systems are the same thing, just information. No one belief system is any better or worse that another, because they are all just information, when it all comes down to it. In other words, the Flying Spaghetti Monster belief is no different that the Big Bang or the Grand Unified Field Theory. What matters in not weather it's scientifically proven, but weather you believe in it. If you can imagine it, it's information. It's no different from anything else because nothing but information has ever been found in search of something real, physical or matter. It doesn't mean that by believing in something you can easily make it real. In the end you'll find that it's hardest to believe in what you want the most and the benefits balances out, refer to Conservation of Energy.

Equality
Since everything is energy and everything is conserved and is merely information, there's no such thing as someone being better or worse than anyone else. Everyone's experience is infinite. No matter how smart or how dumb someone is their experience is just as rich as someone who has a higher IQ or is perceived to be smarter. This brings us to the deduction that no matter how dumb someone is they are just like us. Since everything is the same and everything is an object, anything you can imagine is just as alive as anything. In other words, a mosquito, rock, Santa Clause, X or anything at all is just as alive as human beings. You'll never know what's it's really like to be a grain of sand, just like you'll never know what it's like to be Whitney Houghston until you actually become it. Meanwhile we'll keep thinking that we are the only ones alive because we can only understand those who are similar to us. In actuality, everything is alive and going through it's own chalanges we just don't realize it because we live in our world.

Aliens
The whole question of extraterrestrials and aliens is redundant because not only do other life forms exist, they are everywhere. The only question is which life forms do we choose to relate to and accept.

A specific question is if there are other humanoid life forms elsewhere in the universe. The answer is probably yes, but if they have superior technology and better lifestyles, they would not have any reason in coming here. Just like we have no reason of going to underdeveloped countries unless there's a benefit in it for us. The answer is probably that if you have yet not seen aliens, thank you lucky starts that they've left you alone because if you're not careful, you might lust get what you wished for. All these government conspiracies and cover ups really are for your own protection designed to preserve our ways of life by those for whom it is already too late.

Point zero
So where does this leave us? Well apparently none of it really does matter. The universe is perfectly fair and at the same time, you just can't get a break no matter what you do. So should we all now run for the hills and wait for the sky to fall, or summon the aliens and await the horrendous consequence that will come? Well apparently one again, according to this theory, it really does not matter because aliens are really just like us. One bean of hope however remains, maybe I'm wrong about all this. Maybe the universe is not balanced and there is a way to obtain free energy after all, despite that fact that no one has done it and it is the most impossible thing to do imaginable. Obtaining this free energy, this free lunch, something for nothing, free happiness without consequence is what is called point zero.

The impossible dream
Obtaining free energy will be the hardest technological, sociological or spiritual undertaking that has never been done by man, aliens, god or any other life forms anywhere ever since the beginning of time because it would have only had to have been done once. By all logic, rationale and sanity, it is impossible no matter what you do. Obtaining this point zero is the only thing left imaginable to do once we realize that nothing really matters and that we are all the same and we all just want to be happy. By definition, it is not easy and it is the most impossible thing ever conceivable or more accurately inconceivable. It is the most impossible, hardest most ridiculous thing imaginable that anyone could ever try to do and by definition guaranteed not to work, and it is the only choice we have left.

Life extension and transhumanism
Life extension comes factors in when we accept that nothing matters and we might as well try to stay alive to keep our memories and try as hard as possible to achieve point zero, which is impossible. Life extension is also important as a precautionary measure. It is done just in case this is all wrong and the truth is completely different from what we could have imagined. It is basically a way of saying that life isn't that great, and might not be desirable, but for all we know, death isn't that great either, and not possible anyway, so might as well just stay alive and keep our memories and try to evolve as much as possible in the hopes of one day reaching point zero, which is by all definition not going to happen. At the same time we have no other choice, plus there's always hope that this whole theory is wrong and there really is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in the distant future.

More about meaning of life and science
The question of whether science has anything to say about the meaning of life is hotly disputed, and so far the article has presented only one side of the dispute. I've added material by Bertrand Russell, a leading advocate of the Logical Positivism school. Since there's no well-defined finite procedure for determining the meaning of life, from a logical positivist perspective it's not "cognitively meaningful", so as far as this point of view is concerned thinking about such matters is simply a waste of a scientist's time. Quite frankly, the claims that the various specific scientific topics listed "shed light on" the meaning of life strike me as being rather unsubstantiated and appear to be mostly a WP:SYN. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Another area involves the claim that teleology has been debunked by science. A school of statisticians, following Walter Shewhart and based on the pragmatist epistemology of Clarence Irving Lewis, argues that scientific knowledge is inherently teleological and that scientific propositions can only be established with respect to some purpose. I've added a section outlining the argument. --Shirahadasha 03:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Frustrating
I came to this page for the definitive answer on "The Meaning of Life" but all the page contains is a number of theories and postulations. I suggest that the page be simplified and centralised around the answer: the rest of the content is just chaff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.172 (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this is merely an encyclopedia, not an oracle. Web technology improves many things, but there are some questions whose answers it doesn't make any easier. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This comment reminds me of a student who sat through three-quarters of the lectures in a philosophy course on human nature, and attended every tutorial, then said "I just don't get this course, I came to learn what human nature actually is and you still haven't told me!"
 * To 147.114.226.172, some questions don't have definitive answers. Inapropriate POV comment: To find life meaningful, I would back a combination of Aristotle's recipe for happiness, "live an active life of reason", Richard Taylor's, "find and pursue projects that matter to you", and the psychology book Meaning and the Voids close relationships tend to make most people's lives more meaningful. If you want a meaning of life, as in "is there a purpose to all of our lives", I think that Thomas Nagel's article and chapter on life and absurdity, and Tolstoy's My Confession read alongside Kurt Baier's article on the subject shows there just ain't one. But all the religious types will disagree with me. Anarchia 19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis tag
Several areas where I believe OR synthesis still applies:


 * The Theistic views section selects several paasages from the Bible (described as the "Old Testament" and "New Terstament) and claims they represent general theistic views about the meaning of life. FIrst, Wikipedia's long-standing practice for religion articles is not to accept an editor's own interpretation of the Bible and hence not to use the Bible as a primary source except in articles about particular Bible stories or similar cases where no interpretation is involved. Second, any claim that these particular passages are representative of any current views need to be sourced. Finally, the concepts described are specifically Christian concepts. Any claim that they represent Christianity generally needs to be sourced. *Scientific views section -- There are sources for claims that science deals with each of the issues outlined. But what are the sources for claims that these issues even have to do with the meaning of life, let alone that they are particularly important or notable aspects? Further, are these scientific views of meaning, or nonscientific reflections on scientific findings? Who characterizes these reflections as "scientific"? The section seems to represent an editor's arranging of topics that seem relevant and important to the editor.
 * Humanism section. The only source is the "Humanist Manifesto". What independent source regards the humanist manifesto as representative of humanism generally or even notable? Humanism as a general body of ideas existed for centuries before this manifesto; giving it this much attention and claiming it is suitable sole source for humanism generally doesn't seem to be justified. A document is not a reliable soource for its own originality or importance. --Shirahadasha 05:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Best, --Shirahadasha 05:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientific views and WP:SYN
The claims that science has something to say about the meaning of life are, so far, are either entirely synthetic or give undue weight to obscure and possibly obscurantist views and sources. Claims about how natural science writ large determines the meaning of life are sourced to an self published web page by a Swiss chemist (Luisi) Luisi where he clearly states that he is offering his personal views. He also clearly states the mainstream view that the meaning of life is not part of science proper, going so far as to call meaning a "mental construct" based on a persons socialization and not establishable by scientific methods. This self-published source does not even meet WP:RS - and the use of this scientists' personal opinions to support claims about natural science or natural scientists as a group is an unsupportable synthesis. Any claim general claim about science or scientists as a group needs to come from reliable sources which talk about science or scientists as a group. Sourced claims cannot be extended beyond what those sources actually say, and self-published sources are not reliable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving misplaced comment

 * Sounds to me like this person just put this on the wrong page (how did no one notice this?). I have added it here and removed it form the article. The comment is as follows: -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pantheistic Views***

The above edit (Mystcial Views)is considerably like those of Pantheists. First, understanding God as a force, (not an entity who sits in a cloud, and audits our lives), rather, a force whereas gravity is a force that pulls everything toward the core of a mass, the God force holds all things together, making all things one with each other, including the stars, the comets, and the entire universe. We're all a part of each other. When we say things like, "I hate that person"...what we are actually saying is there's a part of OURSELVES that we hate. As for the meaning of life, if you're Panthiest, the meaning of life comes from the creation of life. The creation being part of the big bang means that we are all created by the stars, the solar winds, iron and all other minerals of the universe. Having said that, the meaning of life is then within ourselves. It's what we want it to be in order for us to better ourselves. If, on the other hand, those who believe God as an almighty and perfect entity, suppose they can understand their God's meaning of life, then that God can't be as all knowing as they think, as we are not perfect, nor almighty.

the meaning of life in through the mind of their God, then that God can't be

Keep, for otherwise what is Wikipedia for?
Wikipedia began as a place for human interaction on both global and personal (even idiosyncratic) scales and almost immediately devolved into two camps: those eager to explore big ideas and those determined to publish and protect convictions already held. Whether as a consequence or a mere collateral Wikipedia, like the political processes of many Western countries, now has enabled a few loud minorities to squash conversations of the larger community by claiming that their personal convictions are so important as to enable muzzling everyone else; the debate about the present article, in my opinion, is an example. Personally, I find the article interesting, if a bit shallow; its many commentaries are deep and narrow, and the objections are shrill. In my opinion the central point is that the experience of reading the whole is informative, stimulating, enlightening, and valuable; removing it would erase a window for viewing interesting ideas. I feel the same when I read many articles in the 11th edition of the Britannica. If Wikipedia deletes a necessarily speculative article about something as intricate as the Meaning of Life because one or more coteries objects to the issues it raises--as opposed to resorting to publishing articles that merely describe the weight of steam engines or size of brassieres (all of which can be found in catalogues, but would offend few purists--wait, an article on brassieres might give someone pause), why bother preserving this necessarily disruptive website as a whole that could "change the world" by helping it know and think?

Normative vs descriptive
The religious and other normative views are looking really great on this page. However the science section is a mess in my opinion -- as it is a hodge-podge of normative (what /should/ one do?) and descriptive (what exists / how did it come to be there / what will happen to it) topics. I'm tempted to delete all descriptive aspects, as in my opinion, "what is the meaning of life" is the purely normative question. (As opposed to, "what is the meaning of 'life'?" -- with quotes, which poses a descriptive question.) However the intro of the article does say that both questions come under the "meaning of life" heading. I don't want to butcher this lovely page by myself -- however I propose for discussion that the article be split into two separate pages, "the purpose of life" (normative) and "the metaphysics of life" (descriptive -- including theories of creation (scientific and religion), identity(theories of mind etc), and destiny(end of the world)). The the "meaning of life" page could be a short disambiguation page pointing at these two. Please add your thoughts about this possible divide.

-- Charles Fox, University of Oxford, 5m.org.uk

Vote for lockdown or permanent
I believe that this article should be one, locked down, or two, deleted. This is because the article has now become page for people to post their opinions about meaning. Not to say that their opinions don't matter, it's just a matter of neutrality. Wikipedia is a neutral source, and the meaning of life is simply not a neutral topic. If we are to keep the article, the article should give the interpretations of several philosophers, and list the different philosophies. In addition, the article should indeed be locked down if kept. Personally, my opinion, is that true meaning can not be known or comprehended.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the opinion itself that fails NPOV, but the presentation of that opinion. I can think of many topics on Wikipedia that are by their nature not neutral (genocide? murder? any ethical issue, really.), and those articles are not deleted just, they find a neutral way to present information about that subject. It's fine if you don't think that the true meaning of life can be comprehended, but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't read about different historical perspectives on the question. Please help us find a more balanced way to present this information. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 23:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with you there, but I still think that the article should be locked down. Like I said above, if the article is to be kept, it should interperet the opinions of several prominent philosophers and list the philosophies that exist today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be deleted or locked because currently each succesive editor changes it to suit their own bais. At the time I am writing this there are several outstanding instances. The editor has said that science and philosophy deal with the question whereas religion merely 'speculates'. Also he makes the claim that religion is the result of a phsycological need for a god. I would like to see the science behind this although the Bible says that 'God has put eternity into the hearts of man." This article currently is baised to an unallowable extent and need to be modifyed accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.58.81 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Love It!
Love the new setup, I think that it should kept this way. Any objection, please share them.(not to sound like I'm the boss) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of how just a few editors can turn a terrible article into an excellent article with a handful of edits. Now all we are some people to copy content from the relevant articles of unrepresented religious/philosophical view points (thanks to those who have added), and then one day this might become a featured article. Cheers, and happy editing. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Illusory purpose
Since the purpose come from reason, and the reason is not consciousness, our brain is programmed to make purposes, we want to eat, we want to have fun, etc. an spiritual purpose is not a purpose in really, it comes comes from the deep of the person and is wordless, our purposes come when we think or just merely instinctual or impulsive. our brain make us bad jokes but the truth is over what is dual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashaj (talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking to Portals
Should we link to the Portals of Philosophy, (Science,) Religion and Spirituality. And if so, where should we link to them, in their own sections or in "See also"? 84.194.227.97 (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of people/religious symbols/art in this article
I added a few images recently to help make the article look a little more "human" and colourful. Right at the top I added a picture by Paul Gauguin, in the philosophy section I added one for Plato and Aristotle, and in the religious section I added a picture of the three symbols of the main three Abrahamic religions, and an image of the Dharmacakra, a Buddhist religious symbol. I also tried looking for other images to visually represent other faiths philosophical viewpoints, but I couldn't quickly find a suitable picture to directly represent them, although I do hope they can be found. In general, I think that since this article is basically a showcase of many different viewpoints, it would be helpful to show a relevant symbol/picture to represent that view. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bahá'í views of the meaning of life
This section has nothing to do with the topic, and seems more of an general introduction to the "religion". Anyhow, it seems mostly strange to put such a small and insignificant "religion" along with judaism, Christianity and Islamism, and calling it "Abrahamic", which it certainly isn't (and it's lengh is absurdly greater than that of those three other religions together). The text, itself, doesn't deal with the topic of the meaning of life anyway other than an indirect way, an indirect way by which a quick introduction to any religion or philosophy would qualify as an distinct answer to the meaning of life question. I vote for the complete exclusion of the section. Being this not accepted, probably it should be rewritten and certainly put somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.181.82.106 (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I looked over it after seeing your comment. It definitely doesn't have anything to do with the article. I'm ok with the idea of it though, as it does self-identify as Abrahamic. It should be tagged for cleanup I think, and if it is not improved it should be deleted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks a lot better, thanks Nick. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I thought the content in Bahá'í teachings looked a little more on topic. Cheers, -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion list ordering
Why order them chronologically? At best it's just kind of arbitrary, at worst it gives the impression that we're equating age with importance. An alphabetical ordering would be more neutral. Ilkali (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And there's no room for argument with alphabetical, which there may be with chronology. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical ordering gives the impression either that we're equating the alphabet with importance (why not give the Z's a chance?), or that we try to be too neutral as to get rid of all intuitive flow (when readers read the article, they reasonably expect some sort of vague historical progression). Why not apply this on "philosophy", "religion", and "science"? Why not apply this on "Eastern" and "Western" philosophy? In the context of this article especially, these are not really things worth thinking about. –Pomte 09:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think alphabetical ordering gives the impression that we're equating the alphabet with importance. It's much too common a way of arranging things for it to seem that way. I still think it is less contentious than is chronology. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "when readers read the article, they reasonably expect some sort of vague historical progression" - Yeah, yeah. Jews will say readers expect chronological ordering, Christians will say readers expect ordering by number of adherents, Muslims will favor ordering by increasing name length, etc, etc. Ilkali (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How is ordering religions chronologically considered arbitrary? There is little (no?) debate about which came first in the Abrahamic religions, as there has been a significant amount of scholarly attention on the subject to remove all doubt. This is also true of the Eastern religions. The thing about the history of thought is that new thoughts are built up on old thoughts, and thus it makes sense to present views in the order at which they appeared "in the wild", rather than by some subjective criteria. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "How is ordering religions chronologically considered arbitrary?" - I consider it at best arbitrary because I don't see a strong reason for it to be that way. This is me assuming good faith. I am assuming you are not biased toward Judaism.
 * "There is little (no?) debate about which came first in the Abrahamic religions" - I'm happy to accept the assumption that the chronology is clear and uncontroversial. That's not related to my point here.
 * "The thing about the history of thought is that new thoughts are built up on old thoughts, and thus it makes sense to present views in the order at which they appeared "in the wild", rather than by some subjective criteria" - Alphabetical ordering isn't even remotely subjective. And this article isn't supposed to be giving a historical account of religious development, it's just meant to give information on numerous religions. Within that context, it doesn't matter which came first. Ilkali (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I mischaracterized your point, then I apologize. But I do disagree about whether this article should give a historical perspective on the subject. If this should be just a list of different views, presented in no particular order, then the current structure of the philosophy section should be dismantled because it gives unfair historical weight to Plato, Aristotle and the rest of Western philosophy, because "Within that context, it doesn't matter which came first". -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless someone could give a reasonable argument for why it does matter, which I don't think would be difficult. Can you give such an argument for the ordering of religions in Meaning of life? Ilkali (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I already had given such an argument: All the religions in the Abrahamic tradition are built up on the development of the other Abrahamic religions that came before them. Therefore, in the interest of understanding each religion's view through it's place in the historical context, they should be organized historically. This argument is true of the philosophy section as well, and perhaps it is more clearly understood by an example there; some philosophical views are direct reactions against earlier views, such as the reaction of Aristotle against the teachings of Plato. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 19:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "All the religions in the Abrahamic tradition are built up on the development of the other Abrahamic religions that came before them. Therefore, in the interest of understanding each religion's view through it's place in the historical context" - I'm finding it difficult to continue assuming good faith here. The idea that Christianity's views on the meaning of life are substantially more difficult to understand if you're unaware of Judaism's seems ludicrous to me. Both sections describe the same kind of information in the same kind of way. Neither is dependent on the other. Ilkali (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain why you find it hard to assume good faith; perhaps you are finding too much significance in a handful of words or actions. But in general I don't believe that a particular view is "more difficult to understand" because one is "unaware of [another religious view]", I just feel that the many different views on the meaning of life are best understood through historical context in which they emerged, that's all. It would be difficult to talk about the views of any of the Dharmic religions (like Buddhism, for example) without making a passing reference to the ideas expressed in the Vedas, which are central to the Hindu tradition out of which Buddhism emerged.
 * More generally though, I would be interested to hear some arguments as to why part of this article is acceptable organized chronologically, while another part would only be acceptable organized alphabetically. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "I just feel that the many different views on the meaning of life are best understood through historical context in which they emerged" - What do you mean by "best understood"? What would be the actual consequences of ordering alphabetically rather than chronologically? Ilkali (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are nearly an infinite number of different ways to organize the same information; some ways of organizing information are better than others; I feel that historical is a better and more contextually understandable way than alphabetical because it has the advantage of presenting views in the order in which they were created/thought up/revealed to humanity/whatever. I have tried to express the same thought to you several times now, and I see no further need to belabour this same point over and over again. You seem completely uninterested in suggesting why alphabetical organization would be better than a historical organization, and more to the point, you completely ignore my question as to why part of this article is acceptable with a chronological structure (philosophy section) and why this section (religious section) would only be acceptable with an alphabetical organization. Please provide some actual arguments to support your view, rather than just attacking an alternate view, and then we can continue this discussion. Thanks, -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "I feel that historical is a better and more contextually understandable way than alphabetical because it has the advantage of presenting views in the order in which they were created/thought up/revealed to humanity/whatever" - I am asking you to explain how it is an advantage. I am asking you to explain the positive consequences.
 * "You seem completely uninterested in suggesting why alphabetical organization would be better than a historical organization" - Because it is the standard ordering used in cases where there is no clear advantage to using any particular ordering scheme. In addition to the neutrality that comes from that fact, it also has the slight advantage that people can predict the positions of items in the list just by knowing their names.
 * "you completely ignore my question as to why part of this article is acceptable with a chronological structure (philosophy section) and why this section (religious section) would only be acceptable with an alphabetical organization" - Because the philosophy section is irrelevant. If you want to argue for any particular ordering in that section, feel free. Just do it in a separate part of the talk page. Ilkali (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The positive consequences for organizing the religious section chronologically are the same as the positive consequences for organizing the philosophy section chronologically; as I have now said multiple times, the development of new thought is built up on the shoulders of old thought, and new thoughts are more adequately understood with some knowledge of the background context out of which they came. A chronological structure of the religious section gives some sense of the development of the religious treatment of this issue, in the same way the chronological structure of the philosophy section gives some sense of the development of the philosophical treatment. Furthermore, please explain why "the philosophy section is irrelevant"; from reading the article, it seems to me that both sections are discussing different views on the meaning of life. I fail to see why this article should have one ordering scheme for one section and have a completely different ordering scheme for another section. Why do you think only this part of the article should demand this special treatment? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "A chronological structure of the religious section gives some sense of the development of the religious treatment of this issue" - That's not a consequence. I'm asking for things like 'people will understand the information better' or 'people will be able to find information faster'. Actual, real consequences.
 * "Furthermore, please explain why "the philosophy section is irrelevant" - Because this part of the talk page was created to discuss proper treatment of the religion section. Ilkali (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I am having a difficult time assuming good faith, as this is looking more and more like a knee-jerk reaction to what you believe to be someone pushing a religious agenda. Please do everyone a favour and actually consider the logical consequences of presenting information in context, and how context allows people to understand information more easily by allowing them to make connections. You completely, continuously, and perhaps willfully ignore the relevance of the points I raise about other sections of this article, and the parallels I draw between those sections and this one. Unless you intend to respond to my actual argument (and please reread what I've said carefully before responding), then I will consider this thread closed, and ask others to contribute their thoughts on the matter. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "You completely, continuously, and perhaps willfully ignore the relevance of the points I raise about other sections of this article" - Other sections of the article are other sections of the article . My stance on any other aspect of Wikipedia is irrelevant to what is appropriate here.
 * You have consistently refrained from explaining exactly, precisely, in real terms how your favored ordering improves the page. Knowing Judaic views on the meaning of life does not make it even slightly easier to understand the corresponding Christian views, and your implicit claim that it does is what makes me doubt your impartiality. Ilkali (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My implicit claim has little or nothing to do with Judaism, it has to do with writing/organizing a good article, and I can only hope your objection has the same goal in mind, and you have no other ulterior motives. If I had instead reorganized the Dharmic religion section first instead of the Abrahamic section, so that Jainism came before Sikism (Jainism having been created over 2000 years earlier), you would of course have raised the same objection and fought that decision with the same amount of veracity? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "My implicit claim has little or nothing to do with Judaism, it has to do with writing/organizing a good article" - And yet you've moved completely from discussing the article to discussing me. Ilkali (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Laf. And clearly this discussion is now over, because only you are allowed to challenge my views because you suspect I have a bias, while I am not. Thanks for playing, come back again when you're interested in responding to what I actually said. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the person who insists on ordering Christianity, Islam and Judaism chronologically is the same person (NickPenguin) who added the picture of the Abrahamic religions with the Star of David appearing at the top, with symbols for Christianity and Islam appearing below the star. Gee, what a coincidence! Kinkyturnip (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true, I did add that image (which incidentally, was created in 2006 by a user on the Italian Wikipedia, not me). After adding that image, I also added images for Buddhism, Jainism, Plato/Aristotle, Epicurus, Humanism, Taoism and Paul Gauguin's painting. You can also read my justification for including these (and other) images right here on this talk page. I try and be upfront about the changes I make to articles, and I don't appreciate people implying I am doing something sinister. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not implying you're doing something sinister. I'm stating that this reveals your biases, i.e. after proposing many carefully worded reasons why ordering religions chronogically--as opposed to a straightforward, conventional, alphabetical list--and several wiki users putting forth equally compelling reasons why alphabetical avoids the pitfalls of chronology (namely, non-NPOV)--that you literally illustrate your personal bias with a graphic portraying the Star of David floating above the symbols for Christianity and Islam. It doesn't matter whether your created this image yourself or originally posted it to Wiki. It might as well carry the caption "God's Chosen People always come first because, well, they just do."

Y'know, journalists are bound by ethics to disclose potential conflicts of interest. E.g., a Harvard alumnus writing an article critical of administrators' salaries at Harvard would mention something like "full disclosure: I'm a Harvard graduate" somewhere in his article. So in the interests of full disclosure, what is your religious affiliation? And is it perhaps coloring the arguments of an otherwise smart, reasonable, well-spoken person? Kinkyturnip (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a religious person, nor was I raised in a religious household. I am a philosopher, first and foremost, and I am interested in the history of thought and how that affects the world we live in now. If you look at my edits to this article and this talk page, you will see my basic rationale is that, since the treatment of the meaning of life has followed through distinct modes of thought as history developed, a chronological examination/presentation/structure is the best approach. Certainly I am biased in my approach, but no more biased than any other living breathing human. You are seeing patterns where there are no patterns, and this appears to be a coincidence that has grown out of proportion. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 00:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, let's follow strict chronology in "The Meaning Of Life." We'll start with Eastern philosophy, which predates Abrahamic religions by several thousand years, then work up to Western religion. When newer philosophies or religions arise from older established schools of thought, e.g., Buddhism arises partly from Hindu teachings, the order should be Hindu, Buddhist, etc. So, roughly, the chronology would be something like this: Hinduism-Jain-Sikh, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism-Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í. Should we end with Reverend Moon's Unification Church, since it's a religious movement also? Sorta brings things full circle, from ancient Eastern philosophy to a modern-day religious movement founded in Korea. OK, now that we've agreed to rearrange this section, who's going to do the HTML heavy lifting--you or me? Happy to oblige, just let me know. Kinkyturnip (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is more than just two people; I would still like to hear from others. But when I first found this article I did consider removing the "religion/philosophy/science" divisions, because this gives the impression they are mutually exclusive, which isn't necessarily true. However there was an existing structure I had to work with, and after a few edits I felt it was at least taking on something of a better shape. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 11:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Meaning of Life" is a category error.
It is syntactically correct, but ontologically corrupt.

What is the sense of November? What is the shame of nine?

Don't ascribe life an attribute it doesn't have. We may find *personal* meaning in our own lives, but the enterprise of life has no meaning.

RichardTHughes

199.2.254.131 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a forum. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the encyclopedia. Ilkali (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But that doesn't make what I said incorrect.
 * Please note wikipedia itself:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_error —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.2.254.131 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion for how to improve the encyclopedia with regard to the Meaning of life article? Ilkali (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is my recommendation that a section highlighting that “the meaning of life” may in fact be a category error should be added. Whilst the other entries are good, the question is given presuppositionalist or teleological content by authors early on that isn’t inherent in the very plain “what is the meaning of life?”
 * This is not to say “life has no meaning”, but that using a correct ontological framework the question makes no sense, because “meaning” is not an attribute that pertains to “life”. The article gives various interpretations of “meaning” but “life” remains nebulous throughout the peace, especially with regard to personal or collective frame of reference.
 * If this is an unpopular viewpoint, or there is good reason not to add it, I understand. I simply wanted to raise the idea here in the hope of a more comprehensive answer.
 * 199.2.254.131 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While I acknowledge your point, I tend to think that the meaning of the term meaning of life is not compositional - that is, it has a lexicalised meaning that doesn't derive directly from its parts. The article is about the concept indexed by the term, which (I think) is not the one you're talking about? I'm not sure if there'd be much benefit to arguing against the coherence of a literal meaning for meaning of life, since the vast majority of the readers don't assign it that meaning anyway. Ilkali (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That’s fair comment. But I’d still favor a comprehensive article rather than a popularist article. “Meaning of life” is question-begging to a degree, you have already granted “life” has “meaning” in the question which, given the multitude of answers is subjective at best and false at worst. Also - given the multitude of answers (none of which rise above conjecture, in my opinon) it is clearly a very open question open to many interpretations. Therefore it makes little sense to exclude viewpoints. --199.2.254.131 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, it would be nice if everyone would actually bother to read an article before commenting on it, because if they did, they would discover that the Logical Positivists hold exactly this view. Currently the first paragraph of the Logical Positivist section reads: ''Of the meaning of life, Ludwig Wittgenstein and the logical positivists said: expressed in language, the question is meaningless. This is because "meaning of x" is a term in life usually conveying something regarding the consequences of x, or the significance of x, or that which should be noted regarding x, etc. So when "life" is used as "x" in the term "meaning of x", the statement becomes recursive and therefore nonsensical.'' -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 06:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, it would be nice if people used the correct terminology, which is "category error" and already has a wikipedia page to link too. But does seem to pertain to that notion., so my apologies for missing it. Frm a txonomy point of view this should be the first (or last) entry, because it challenges the legitimacy of the premise, in my opinion. --216.80.31.119 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, this article is still under development, and the language used in many sections can still be significantly improved. However, I am not sure if the logical positivists themselves refer to their view as on the matter as a category error, since the phrase was coined by Gilbert Ryle, who follows from the positivist tradition, but is not necessarily a positivist. But as for putting this early (or later) in the article, I should also point out that the first paragraph of the philosophy section does say that: The issue of the meaning of life has a rich tradition of thought in the history of philosophy. For example, philosophers have considered such questions as: "Is the question 'What is the meaning of life?' a meaningful question?" This could be clearer, and I think the article would benefit from linking to other relevant sections of the article here, like it currently does for the Humanism section, so I will make some adjustments. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

All good stuff, Nick. I'm not sure if you're espousing adding to the positives portion, bifurcating or aren't too keen on "category error". Thanks to both you and Ilkali for the dialogue. Such an unbound and emotive issue is always going to be difficult to frame.

216.80.31.119 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Misgivings for the Maudlin
"to treasure every sunrise, every raindrop that hits your nose, every slobber of your dog, the feeling of sand between your toes."

IMHO, this answer is shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.230.89 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Elusive"
The first sentence of the article: The meaning of life is an elusive concept that has been the subject of much philosophical, scientific and theological speculation.

I think the word elusive ought to be replaced with a word like deliberation. Elusive connotes a difficulty to grasp the subject, when in reality, many groups claim to have defined it fully. Therefore, while it is elusive to some, it is a debate to others. Post here if you agree? Enz1 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Science, again
Where the heck does the absurd claim that science has nothing to say about the "Meaning of Life" come from? Depending on the definition it can say a lot about it: the "purpose of life" is non-existent, unless Life was actually created by someone with an intention (see: theism); the "goal of life" is survival of the genes, through mutation and adaptation; the "origin of life" can be traced back to abiogenesis -- the details aren't entirely worked out, but the concept is pretty sound; the "value of life" can be analysed through scientific means, this is what we have sociology and concepts like utilitarianism for -- utilitarianism may be a philosophy, but it doesn't work without relying on scientific principles; the "reason to live" can be deducted from various fields such as sociology or psychology, but more importantly neurology and biology -- the triggers for existential angst can be analysed and a motivation to stay alive can be deducted from that.

The one thing there is no science readily available for is finding the purpose of life, because it implies the existence of a creator, whose motives could only be guessed at. Outside creationism you won't find much support for that implication to be considered particularly useful or reasonable, so you know where to go if you really want to ask that question and get a different answer than "Mu."

This is not Original Research. It's common sense. That theologists and moral philosophers don't like scientists to muck around with their pet topics is just too bad, but it's just blatantly false to claim science has no answers simply because you don't like the answers it provides. There's nothing magical about science, it's just practical application of the basic concepts intelligent thinking relies on: causality &mdash; Ashmodai (talk &middot; contribs) 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering where that "absurd claim that science has nothing to say about the meaning of life" came from too, because it certainly didn't come from this article. If you read Meaning_of_life again, I think you will find it mirrors your views almost exactly. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
I put this in the peer review discussion page, but thought I should also post it here:

I've taken a look at the article and would like to give my feedback:


 * 1)It is extremely well written. I do not think the length is a problem at all, because each section has been written in summary style and link to corresponding longer articles if someone wants more information.
 * 2)The only section I found that needs work is the Christian view section. It quotes a lot of Scripture, but no other sources. This gives the appearance of original research. The Scripture references may be an accurate portrayal of the Christian view, but another source should be used.
 * 3) The only sections I think should be removed or possibly edited is the Humorous and Popular Culture sections near the end. The Humorous section seems muddled and confusing, and I think the images take up too much space. The pop culture section seems more like trivia and thus a bit (but not completely) irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I hope that helps. Good job at summarizing an extremely vast subject in such a concise article! Kristamaranatha (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality
I think this is an extremely fine article of the highest significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flute2!% (talk • contribs) 20:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC) ````

Without getting too deep into the topic ...
Without getting too deep into the topic, it looks pretty obvious to me that as of today, March 26, 2008, the first part of this article has been tampered with -- everything up to "The meaning of life is an elusive concept ..." is mischievous if not malicious. I don't feel comfortable removing someone else's work, because I'm a very occasional contributor, but I wish one of the big cheeses would do it.71.91.124.229 (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal oppinions
I would suggest that somewhere should be a section where people can give their own oppinion about the meaning of life, maybe best not in the article itself, possibly here on the talk page. Contributors wanting to add their own view will no longer mess with the article. On the article itself could be placed a reference like For the personal oppinions of several Wikipedians, see here. 84.194.232.110 (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. That is patently not the purpose of talk pages. See the note at the top of the page for further explanation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

About the "supernatural" section
Is this section appropriate for this article? It reads like a list of single-scientific-theory specific entries, and when you edit the article, theres a comment at the top of the science section suggests that these are discouraged. Science does present us with a number of important topics, just like every religion and philosophy has made many major contributions, but not all important topics should be mentioned on this page. Perhaps we can condense this and add something to the "See also" section? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 18:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Is there scientific proof of something "supernatural" or "paranormal" section is off-topic. It has nothing to do with the meaning of life, except for a brief reference to Dawkins' video "The Big Question: Why are we here?" This material is already in God, Parapsychology, and Supernatural, where it belongs. I suggest we delete it from this article. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The section is on-topic, because a lot of people seem to depend on the existence of something supernatural to be motivated enough to keep on living, though the section is indeed too long (more exactly, concerning the examples). I'm readding it, with the text concerning the experiments shortened, and some minor adjustments. If someone still finds the section to be overly long or malphrased, adjust the text, but don't just remove the whole section. 81.165.230.213 (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If "a lot of people seem to depend on the existence of something supernatural to be motivated enough to keep on living," then please provide a source for the statement. Discussion of how the existence of the supernatural provides meaning to life would be on-topic. Discussion of the evidence for or against the supernatural is not on-topic, but could be made readily available through wikilinks to God, Parapsychology, and Supernatural. --Dr.enh (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To note one example: in reference to Nietzsche's postulation of "God's death" (the development of modern science and secularization of European society is said to have destroyed the faith in God) and the resulting loss of any universal meaning or value, in the worst case, complete loss of meaning and value, Heidegger puts the problem as "If God as the suprasensory ground and goal of all reality is dead, if the suprasensory world of the Ideas has suffered the loss of its obligatory and above it its vitalizing and upbuilding power, then nothing more remains to which man can cling and by which he can orient himself."
 * 5. Heidegger, "The Word of Nietzsche," 61.
 * I think this is a good source for proving the point that society relies on the existence of something that transcends the common physical universe in order to keep one's life meaningful. I'm readding the section in its most recent version with a few additions. 84.194.236.219 (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to add views from a specific thinker, please do within the context of an appropriate section. Nietzsche and Heidegger weren't scientists in the modern sense, so we don't need to talk about them in the science section. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've readded some text, I feel that it shows important issues. Concerning the "supernatural" section, there are many religions that posit some kind of afterlife, and it would be interesting and on-topic to note the results of scientific research treating such a possibility. 81.165.228.212 (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat, people should be aware of the contributions of science in relation to the meaning of life, to become aware of the facts and come to their own conclusions to their relevance. But the coverage in this article should be brief and concise, and point readers to where they can get more detailed information. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 23:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since "there are many religions that posit some kind of afterlife" as relevant to the meaning of life, I have wikilinked the word "afterlife" whenever it appears in the religion sections. Scientific evidence for or against the existence of an afterlife in the the afterlife article. Again, scientific evidence for or against the existence of an afterlife does not belong in the Meaning of life article. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a suitable compromise. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Romanticism
Should the 19th centrury philosphy section include a section on Romanticism? I don't know much about philosophy or romanticism, but please see Positive psychology --Dr.enh (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I've been looking at other pages, like Philosophical movement and more generally the many different Schools of philosophy and Major religious groups. Some groups do not seem to have an explicit/concrete "meaning of life" concept, it seems to present itself as a broad collection of values, and those are the more troublesome ones to make entries for. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Doomed?
The statement that humanity would seemed to be doomed is kinda flawed isn't it? I didn't some research prove recently the universe is expanding? http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/990210c.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnarr (talk • contribs) 10:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes present evidence indicates that the universe is expanding, but stars won't keep burning for eternity, even black holes won't last forever, where would living beings get their energy from? Truth is relative, understanding is limited (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Improving the lede paragraph
A Lead section "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". I think this one has a long way to go before it adequately summarizes things. Somehow it needs to explain the progression of thought/main areas of thought in all the different viewpoints, and perhaps explain the major areas where people have given thought on the meaning of life. How can this article start off better and prepare the reader for what's to come? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The current lead should really become the first main section of the article called "Background" or "Overview" or something - its purpose being to explain what the question might mean before launching into the various attempts at an answer. Then the lead has to be a summary of the article, which, admittedly, will have to be quite a vague summary. A paragraph on philosophy, a paragraph on religion, a paragraph on science, and a sentence or two saying that there are some popular views. Singinglemon (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Some suggestions: Adding a sentence referring to various concepts which have been claimed to be of ultimate importance in life and/or to explain the nature of reality, for instance, William James states in Pragmatism:
 * "All the great single-word answers to the world's riddle, such as God, the One, Reason, Law, Spirit, Matter, Nature, Polarity, the Dialectic Process, the Idea, the Self, the Oversoul, draw the admiration that men have lavished on them from this oracular role. By amateurs in philosophy and professionals alike, the universe is represented as a queer sort of petrified sphinx whose appeal to man consists in a monotonous challenge to his divining powers. THE Truth: what a perfect idol of the rationalistic mind!"
 * And also noting several acclaimed ethical principles, moral laws and human rights which have been put forward in the history of religion and philosophy, such as the ethic of reciprocity (Golden Rule), the categorical imperative, the principle of retributive justice (eye for an eye) and the inalienable rights (among these: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness").
 * 84.194.237.100 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We exist because we can
We exist because we can. And this has been proven because we do exist. Not convinced? Then let me prove it with a mathematical equation. When one side of the equation equals the other, then the equation is true, yes? Two plus two equals four. Therefore, four equals two plus two. Same thing, except the order has been reversed, right? So, in English, the word ‘therefore’ is equivalent to the ‘three dots sign’ in mathematics. So if I say this: ‘We exist. Therefore we can exist’. Then this is also true: ‘We can exist. Therefore we exist’.

Hold on. If that’s true, then how about this statement: ‘I stood on dog shit. Therefore I cleaned my shoes.’ This would also mean that ‘I cleaned my shoes. Therefore I stood on dog shit.’ Doesn’t make sense, does it? But look at it this way. When I say ‘I stood on dog shit. Therefore I cleaned my shoes,’ there are two events with one of them happening after the other happened. So, in this case, ‘therefore’ can only apply in one way: forward in time. We can’t say that we will do something in the future so that something is happening now, can we? Chronicle continuum only flows in one direction, so it doesn’t make sense if we say ‘something will happen, so something is happening now’. This will work only if we can travel in both directions of ‘time’ that is now accepted to be a dimension just like space: length, width and depth. But, BUT, when I say ‘We exist. Therefore we can exist’ and ‘We can exist. Therefore we exist’, the two statements are dimensionless. Time is no problem here because they’re not ‘events’. They are just statements, like 'two plus two equals four'. So the rule can be applied here to prove my point.

So, now I have answered the ultimate question, as promised in the beginning of this essay. The meaning of life? The reason for our existence? Because we can. As simple as that.

222.153.10.248 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Somehow I doubt that that is either 1. A satisfactory answer and 2. Good enough to get this article deleted. And what you believe is a theory. Kthxbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.8.232 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Stating the obvious is not "the meaning of life", also everything exists in a certain way, be it physical or imaginary, if you talk about something having the capability of existing, it must already exist, if I were to say "I can do stuff. Therefore I exist." would also be obvious. It is however more meaningful to say "We exist, let's just assume that our existence is "meaningful" and assume whatever is logically needed for our existence to be meaningful." 81.165.230.84 (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, to say that something happens because it can happen is silly. I am a student. Therefore I can be a student. But to say I can be a student, therefore I am a student seems to me to be completly wrong. Many people could be students but are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.58.81 (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First section
I think this:

Some individuals, including logical positivists, have asked questions like "What does the question 'What is the meaning of life?' mean?"[23]

comes too soon after the meaning of life questions. I think people should have a moment to rest their thoughts on the theme & concept of these questions before being led to question the questions quite so immediately.

I secondly think that their should be more reflection of the concept of search for meaning in life as a concept in an individuals personal journey, similar to the Religious answers... paragraph but non-religious. Often this is not a deeply philosophical or intellectual question for people but a matter of personal experiences, learning, personal journey etc etc etc as reflected in many creative works. So to sum up; the popular views section isn't reflected in this section, and I think it should be. --78.86.146.148 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Life is in need of a "expert on the subject"
I am an expert on the meaning of life... it is 'Duh', because the answer is in the fu**ing question! the meaning of life is life itself...duh -God

Is that a joke? Can anyone be a expert on the subject of the meaning of life? Other than experts on the religious explanations of the meaning of life? Correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypham3000 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that was hilarious too, but this article does need some serious attention, preferably from someone with a background in comparative philosophy or religion. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how I found myself on this page, but that tag just struck me as one of the funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia in years. Antandrus  (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia could make an even greater contribution to the world if it could provide a forum for a genuine expert on the meaning of life. Millions might benefit! (On the other hand they might be reverted....)


 * But to address the actual issue: If we had a tag that said "experts" (instead of "expert"), it may have seemed less humorous. Each section needs an expert on that section's topic(s) - philosophy, comparative religion, psychology, cognitive science, physics, etc. If you take a look at the sorry state of this article a year or so ago and compare it to the remarkably improved quality that we have now, you might conclude that the placement of that tag could possibly have been the single best edit this article has ever had. -Do c t <font color="#0000a0">orW  21:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the body a psychotherapeutic literature as being a claim on the idea of being 'expert' in the meaning of life. I'm going to add some contributions made by the prominent Psychotherapist and Psychiatrist Irvin Yalom, about the difference between "the meaning of life?" and "the meaning of my life?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob2000 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am new here to wikipedia. I am an atheist. I think the "meaning" to life is actualy a compulsion to live, that or to live to enjoy new things, that we reproduce and take care of ourselves, so that we and others (thusly so that other people may feel the same way about us) so that they just enjoy things. I find no reason to believe in God, it, as I see it, has no proof, but I am so happy how life, us, have turned out. -Zappy598

Corrections in science section
There are a number of misleading claims in the science section. Saying how early in the Big Bang physics can describe things kinda misses the point - understanding the singularity of the Big Bang will not really help us understand its origins. The Anthropic Principle comment is pretty out of touch, too, as most physicists (namely Weinberg and co.) would argue the Anthropic Principle is useless in cosmology. Finally, I take issue with the expression of quantum mind theories as a "popular alternative to determinism" among scientists. It is not. Classical theories of mind are by far the most widely-research and widely-believed mechanism for consciousness. I will go ahead and make some of the appropriate changes. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, science tends to be somewhat incompatabilist concerning the meaning of life, and generally holds to determinism. Free will through quantum phenomena is not just a popular alternative to determinism, it appears to be the only one scientificly treatable, since quantum phenomena are probabilistic, thus not wholly deterministic. 84.194.233.241 (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because it's probabilistic doesn't mean it lets magic happen. No matter how you throw the dice, you're still in the world of physics. Also, in the grand sense of things, QM doesn't let you do anything that determinism can't do. SamuelRiv (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from, but lets face the facts, science doesn't have a complete explanation for consciousness, free will, and the origin of the universe. Since Wikipedia tries to be neutral, it presents the possibilities. I think many scientists would agree with you that the subjects you've mentioned are not really related to any "meaning of life", but there are people who say otherwise, among these people are also scientists, some of them very respected individuals, some others wholly neglected or rejected. But that still leaves us two conflicting views, and since one view seems to reject the general notion of "meaning of life", this article may at times spend more content on what is generally conceived as the controversial, unconventional view. 84.194.239.240 (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

suggested link for External links
Dear all, I was thinking of including a link to a fictional story about the meaning of life, that goes by that title (The Meaning of Life). However, I'm the author of the story so I'm not sure if it's against the guidelines. Here's the link: http://www.wordriot.org/template_2.php?ID=1616 I'd be curious to know what you think. Best, Daniel Hudon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magritte64 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Being fictional, not published in a notable journal, and written by a nonnotable author means that it has no grounds for inclusion. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote the leeed
I had a stab at rewriting the lead section by summarizing the article. I'm not sure how well I did - it's a bit of a challenge when there are so many approaches to such a nebulous concept as the meaning of life. It might have worked better if I had made it shorter and even vaguer. I think the paragraph I wrote on religious answers kinda sucks, but still, there we go. :-) I moved the list of questions in the old lead section to a new section called Overview (a better title could be thought of). I distributed the remainder of the content into the body of article, but there is still one rather disjointed paragraph on religion still sitting in the Overview section which I didn't know where to move. Singinglemon (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed!
Everyone did a really good job on this article. The summary of the Christian belief was handled quite well in those 2 paragraphs. The only thing I found that could be worked on is the section on Islam, the first 2 paragraphs seem a bit redundant. 65.189.242.190 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle's view and logical positivism
The logical positivist view is expressed in the "Aristotle's view" part of the article. So, was he the first one to mention it or is it totally irrelevant? 79.103.201.139 (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

reorganization
I'm not sure the current breakdown - basically a laundry list of various perspectives, organized oddly (first western philosophical, then western religious, the other religions, then back to western scientism) - really handles the matter well. two other approaches that occur to me: just a rough outline, of course, but do either of these strike the right chord? let me know before I get involved in large-scale revisions. -- Ludwigs 2 05:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) organizing it temporally
 * 2) *ancient beliefs first - Greek, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Jewish, early Christian, Jain and Zoroastrian)
 * 3) *mid-range beliefs - Roman Catholic and Christian theosophy, enlightenment philosophy, Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita vedanta, Bahá'í
 * 4) *contemporary beliefs - Science, philosophical perspectives, new-age type concerns
 * 5) organizing thematically
 * 6) *reason and cognition based, self-ontology
 * 7) *divinity-based, non-dualistic unions, prescriptive creeds (both religious and philosophical)
 * 8) *pragmatic and analytical approaches (including nihilistic threads)


 * If I remember correctly, the science section used to be first a long time ago; I assumed it was moved down because the idea that science per se (as opposed to philosophical interpretations of its findings) has much to say about the meaning of life is controversial. My own bias would be to put reason first, but organizing things according to your second plan (though preferable to the current organizational structure) would invite more disagreement than would the first (temporally organized), which is both more neutral and less subject to varying interpretations (for example, theme boundaries). I like the temporally organized plan a lot. An additional advantage is that the development of thinking about this ancient question is more apparent. We need a good label for mid-range beliefs. -<font color="#0000a0">Do <font color="#">c <font color="#a00040">t <font color="#0000a0">orW  16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * yeah, the mid-range beliefs thing is a bit vague. the problem, really, is that this 'mid-range' period basically covers the expansion of the big universalistic religions, and so insightful thought is limited in deference to proselytic efforts.  I mean, you have a few christian philosophers, the inception of Islam (which self-admittedly borrows a lot from judeo-christian though), mahayana buddhist revisionism in asia and adviata vedanta in India, but most of it really represents attempts to rationalize and solidify doctrine.  you don't really see innovative stuff until the Enlightenment period.  we could try section titles like this: Ancient (rational idealist) philosophy; universalist expansion; Enlightenment (rational moralism) thought; contemproary scientific and philosophical views.  I'm not sure that entirely satisfies me...


 * you're probably right that the second plan would generate a bit of dissent (too bad - that's generally the way I see the issue, so that would be easier - for me at least ). but yeah, unless it were done carefully it might imply connections between ideas that are merely parallel developments, and that wouldn't be good.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the sections should be broken down by years, with individual sections describing the viewpoint's cultural context. I would hesitate to try and carve time up into ideological categories, because they aren't easily applied to all thinkers, and we can make these connections into the article text. It's looking like this article needs a strong "what is the search for the meaning of life?" section, followed by a collection of historical perspectives, finishing with modern and popular views. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * well, the ideological categories actually work fairly well, for systemic reasons, but... at any rate, years would be a bit too precise, (many actual dates in antiquity are contested).  eras would certainly work,though.  something like this (using the categories that are currently in the article):
 * Antiquity (100 BC or so and earlier)
 * Hinduism
 * Zoroastrianism
 * Buddhism
 * Taoism
 * Confucionism
 * Judaism
 * Greek philosophy
 * Expansionist period (up till, perhaps, the 15th century)
 * Christian theology
 * Mahayana Buddhism
 * Advaita Hinduism
 * Islam
 * Sikhism
 * Shinto
 * Early modern (15th through 19th centuries)
 * Utilitarianism
 * Nihilism
 * Bahai
 * Liberalism (this is missing from the current line-up, but there's a bunch of stuff from Locke to Rousseau to Adam Smith that might be needed here)
 * Modern (late 19th century on)
 * Pragmatism
 * Existentialism
 * Humanism
 * Scientistic
 * Evolutionary or species oriented
 * Positivism
 * Psychological (scientific)
 * Post-modern perspectives (another missing element)
 * Language theorists
 * Deconstructivism
 * Psychological (pop)
 * multiple categories
 * Modern spiritualism (Tolle, Wilber, Ramakrishna, Krishnamurti, etc.)
 * we could play around with sub-grouping: that's easiest in the 'modern' category (where I've done a bit of it), but gets hairy in the others. there's also an issue that something like Buddhist or Christian philosophy is intended as a timeless universal - many buddhists and Christians would consider their beliefs 'modern day' beliefs rather than old beliefs.


 * ponder that for a bit, and in the meantime I'll try to whip up a "what is the search for the meaning of life?" section. -- Ludwigs 2  04:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * [1] I'm not convinced yet that a "what is the search for the meaning of life?" section is a good idea. I'll be surprised if you can say anything that does not require philosophical presuppositions that are better left to discussion in the context of the various approaches in subsections.


 * [2] Four major temporal categories seems much better than three. Good proposal. Perhaps last one should be "Modern/contemporary" or "Modern and contemporary". In my view, separating these would not be good (what would you do with science, a modern approach with enormous influence up to the present?)


 * [3] The words "scientism" and "scientistic" have been used pejoratively in most things I've read, such as an application of science outside its proper bounds to try to make philosophical claims which themselves are not in fact scientific. They might be aptly applied to some of the treatment of biology and physics and especially of science of mind as it currently exists in the article, but I think it is very important not to apply this label to scientific psychology, which studies what people think and experience regarding meaning and life satisfaction (and factors that impact or are impacted by these). I think there is enough material for a "Scientific findings" section; perhaps this should be strictly science, and perhaps philosophical arguments based (in part) on scientific findings should be in a separate section.


 * [4] A small point, but I don't like the heading "Psychological (pop)". Pop psychology needs to be clearly distinguished from scientific psychology. It ought to be called "Pop psychology" if it even deserves a presence outside the highly dubious "Popular views" section. Perhaps it could be combined with a section containing arguments/views based on science.


 * [5] A significant development in Buddhist or Christian thought can be included in a later section - if it is in fact really significant. If not, perhaps a mention that adherents consider the views timeless would not be inappropriate. -<font color="#0000a0">Do <font color="#">c <font color="#a00040">t <font color="#0000a0">orW  18:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) DoctorW - I'm with you on points 2-5 (you're right, 'scientistic' is a wrong term, and pop-psych does need to be kept well separate). however, I think I can do a decent job with point 1 - here's a rough draft:

a bit OR-ish, yes, but to the point (hey, y'all asked for an expert... ).  comments?
 * I like where this is going, I like the idea of an intro with some bluelinks, it'll forewarn the reader a little bit that there's going to be a lot of pretty heavy stuff in this article. That example intro is a bit OR, and it may have a strong dose of the West in it, but it's moving in the right direction. I'm not sure how to say it, but it would be worthwhile to note to the reader that while there are some really old and well accepted viewpoints, there are new views every day. I'd like it to say something like that, but without inserting my own perspective too much, which is "Just wait and see". -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a formatting problem caused by the section heading "Historical perspectives" such that the entire article is under it. After thinking about it, however, I have a problem with the heading being there at all. Where do you put science? As was mentioned, some approaches with ancient origins think of themselves as modern or timeless. I think it's best to let the main sections stand on their own without overly highlighting the "historical" dimension of their origins, which is already significantly highlighted by the basic organizational structure.


 * Also, I appreciate getting help from a philosophy expert, but I'm afraid the passage above really is original research. An introduction will work if it can somehow lay out broad guidelines which do not align themselves with any of the particular approaches that might be taken to "meaning of life" (e.g., central questions are those dealing with free will vs. determinism) or philosophical conclusions or commitments ("Questions about the meaning of life, thus, are inevitably questions about the proper ways to choose and act"). Psychologists, for example, are (as much as possible) careful not to have such stakes claimed (no matter how reasonable or well-argued they may seem) in the foundations of their approach, unless addressing a specific theory. A brief and descriptive overview of major types of approaches, and/or major issues typically dealt with (not because OR concluded thus, but because it's already there historically) might work if it can avoid these pitfalls. It might not be natural for an expert philosopher to strip out almost all philosophizing; on the other hand it might be a worthy challenge! -<font color="#0000a0">Do <font color="#">c <font color="#a00040">t <font color="#0000a0">orW  19:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * strip out philosophizing??!?! AAAaaahhhh, you're killing me! Et tu, Bruté!!!   No, I know that was too much (which is why I posted it here rather than editing it in).  I was hoping it might serve as a guide (or at least an inspiration) for what a section like that might deal with.  most of the OR is in the second paragraph - the first is fairly self-evident and supportable - but...  lets see if we can make anything useful out of it.


 * and yeah, the structural revisions you made are better - lumping everything under 'history' was odd. -- Ludwigs 2  21:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno, that first one sounds a bit existential to me. I think we would be better off trying to brainstorm a list of major themes like ethics, beliefs, metaphysics, goals, rituals and such. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Outdent) Continuing on the same theme I was thinking last night, in which areas of life is the meaning of life supposed to clear things up? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick, I'm not sure that's quite the right way to phrase the question. questioning the meaning of life is usually a response to some sort of trial or tribulation. people try to find broader meanings when they can't make sense of their lives in any narrower way.  the big, philosophical 'Meaning of Life' things arise as philosophers try to generalize that simpler questioning to the entire world.  so, you get Plato saying that everyone should be placed by a philosopher king into their own best slot in society; Buddha saying that everyone should give up attachments to the 'things' of the world, because attachments cause misery; nihilists saying that we should give up the very idea that life has a meaning; some pop-psych gurrhoid saying we should drink beet juice and love our partners unconditionally...  part of the problem is that the problem is not clearly defined, and so almost anything can be proposed as the cure-all.  in other words, the 'meaning of life' thing can be used to try and clear up any particular thing in our lives, or to clean up everything.


 * but major theme-wise... if we stick to just 'grand' theory, I think the following covers it (though the labels are open to change, and they are not necessarily exclusive; and this is really just an expansion of the above into categories...):
 * hedonism - finding meaning in sensory experience (might be split as follows)
 * immediate experience for short-term gratification
 * long-term creation of an aesthetically pleasing life
 * idealism - focusing on and pursuing some perfect, ideal state (might be split as follows)
 * purification/renunciation
 * imitation/emulation
 * civicness - creating a neighborly, loving, trouble free society (might be split as follows)
 * universalist love or respect
 * moral structures and codes
 * liberation - freedom from (***) that allows one to live an 'authentic' or 'natural' life (might be split as follows)
 * 'true' liberation
 * submission to a natural or divine order
 * does that get us anywhere? -- Ludwigs 2  20:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as I suspected, the easiest way to get the right answer is to suggest the wrong one. That's all good stuff, because it shows us places where the meaning of life would have influence in an individuals everyday life. Consider something like this:


 * Clearly a rough first attempt, but I think this article needs a few quick sentences that can law out the ideological landscape for the reader, so when they read through different perspectives, they can begin to see some common themes emerge. By pointing out all the areas where the meaning of life matters (or would influence actions/way of life), the reader can better translate the text into this article into real life. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict with NickPenguin]
 * [Response to Ludwigs]: Yes, I think it does (get us somewhere). I think this could be an excellent basis for an introduction if made into concise prose. It organizes the territory for the reader (an advantage of the thematic organizational presentation of the whole article without its fatal pitfalls), so we get the best of both worlds. No implication need be present that a category or the group of categories is comprehensive, or that categories or subcategories are exclusive. It can just be like a tour guide pointing out the types of approaches as broad themes.


 * This also avoids the problem of the article itself seeming to make philosophical commitments such as asserting that "questions about the meaning of life ultimately stem from...", that they result from trial or tribulation, or conflict between ideal and reality, etc., however self-evident and reasonable these may seem. My own background is weighted toward East Asian thought, and I'm not entirely comfortable with what feels like an analytical, Western approach even in the first paragraph. That's not to say that something can't be made out of it, but I really like the idea of giving an overview in terms of categories.


 * Sorry about the stabbing Ludwigs. I know I got you where it hurts. -<font color="#0000a0">Do <font color="#">c <font color="#a00040">t <font color="#0000a0">orW  21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL - no worries. I've known for a LONG time that my brain tends to float like a butterfly (and sometimes sting like a bee, apologies to MA).  the way I figure it (like Nick said above) sometimes you just have to say something to get things moving, and trust the rest of the world to bring it back to reality.  .  ok, let me see if I can turn the above into a nice concise thing (unless one of you wants to tackle it) and we'll put it up and work with it.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since we have divided this page up into different ages, it would make sense to do a brief historical writeup for each section. Introduce the reader not only to the theories, but also hit some major cultural landmarks at the time. I think this would also be a way to integrate the science section, and if we're lucky, the pop culture section as well. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 01:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, intros look great so far, they sound very straightforward and logical. These statements need sources tho, no matter how believable they feel. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 23:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, yeah, I know... but I only have ten fingers. whaddaya think, that they pay me to do this?   -- Ludwigs 2  00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (just an FYI). my plan right now is to finish working my way through the entire article, and then go back and add in refs and revisions (unless someone beats me to it, of course...).  -- Ludwigs 2  04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

list in lead
Nick, the addition of that long list with references ion the lead looks ugly as sin. there has got to be a better way to do that. maybe a short list of questions (2-4), without the refs? -- Ludwigs 2 01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was like that for a couple of months, at least. Change it to whatever you think is better, I just wanted to see some sourced content in the intro. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 01:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sections to be expanded
As of the writing of this, 4 sections needs to be expanded: Zoroastrianism, Advaita Hinduism, Kantianism and Postmodernism. These are sections that have little to no content in them, and they really should be flushed out with something more. The easiest way is to try and find text in the main article, or related articles on the subject. I know not all the existing articles are perfect, but most of them have some well sourced content that would fit nicely here. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 00:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Advaita Hinduism should be split out of the Hinduism section, Zoroastrianism I know absolutely nothing about, Kantianism and Postmodernism I'd been thinking about, but haven't gotten to yet. if that helps...   -- Ludwigs 2  00:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't really have to know a whole lot about a particular view to write a section. When you find it in another wikipedia article, you can usually just copy and paste it. When you look for things in Google searches, all you have to do is reword that fact, source it, and draw no conclusions. Building a whole section from nothing is kinda like putting together a puzzle where you don't have the picture. But as long as you can make the pieces fit together, you can use whatever pieces are handy. Then, usually, someone else comes along to improve it. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 00:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * lol - that's a refreshing view.   alright, I'll see what I can do with it as I go along.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the way the wiki world works. Just throw in a half dozen attempts at vandalism and you're good to go ;) -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Add in political views?
I filled in some info in the Liberalism section, and it occurs to me that perhaps we should include major political ideologies as well. I suspect the stuff on Template:Political ideologies would be a good place to start looking. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 23:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * well... I'm not sure we want to open that can of worms.  there's room here for a few political philosophers who actually considered broader issues about the meaning of human life, but most political positions are pragmatic - interested in forms of social control without really considering quality issues.  I wish it were otherwise (if it were, all sorts of issues - from abortion to gay marriage to the legalization of medical marijuana - would be resolved almost before they started).  but if there's something particular you have in mind...  -- Ludwigs 2  22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's an issue of room, since this is clearly a topic that a lot has been said about. But with political views, it is much like the scientific views, such that they produce an environment where certain values take precedence, and it generates a way of life and a meaning of life. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 17:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, that makes sense. If we go that route, I think we should move the modern liberalism stuff to that section, and expand classical liberalism.  classical liberalism is very similar to modern libertarianism (though much more philosophical); none of the early theorists would have known what to do with modern 'social justice' issues, and Rousseau (at least) would have found some of them to be a disturbing trend.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (P.s.) we need to keep a watch on it, though. I don't want it to turn into a political free-for-all...  -- Ludwigs 2  18:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Classical liberalism
Most readers (who may have less background in philosophy) are likely to think of "liberalism" as the contemporary political stance contrasted with conservatism. This is different in some very significant ways from Classical liberalism. Wouldn't "Classical liberalism" be a better title for this section? -<font color="#0000a0">Do <font color="#">c <font color="#a00040">t <font color="#0000a0">orW  21:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * yeah, I agree with this - If Nick's on board, let's do that. -- Ludwigs 2  04:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, go for it. Whatever improves the accuracy of the article. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 23:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Baha'i
This was per WP:Undue as the edit summary said. It also tightened up the references from various primary sources to a single secondary source per WP:Sources.

Statement of good faith: How many times have you seen a believer edit down their own faith's material?

Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * well, that might be a bit too cut down, though I don't object to the idea. can we find something in the middle?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * P.s. can you please not mark your edits as minor? a personal peeve of mine, even though I check minor edits in my watchlist.  thanks.    -- Ludwigs 2  04:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Pragmatism about meaning of life
The Pragmatism section writes so little about meaning of life... That can be good if it be improved. --Beyond silence 22:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Who added this?
I'm seeing some mystery text at the beginning of the article that reads, "the meaning of life is a question that only god can answer"

I believe this should be removed as it is an opinion.75.26.194.84 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * agreed - probably some missed vandalism. I'll get it now.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ah, looks like someone else got it already. are you still seeing it?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Futilitarianism
It seems that the philosophical position of Futilitarianism is (almost) identical to Nihilism, but maybe it can be useful to mention that the name is derived from Utilitarianism's idealization of utility resulting in the devaluing of all other ideals, and consequently utility itself becoming meaningless and losing its value. This seems to me very similar to the idealization of (falsifiable) knowledge and (provable) truth by science, which leads to the devaluing of all values, since the lack of belief in somekind of supernatural reality reduces them to artificial constructs of human society, resulting in Nihilism. 84.194.239.240 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

General Conclusion Of Everything
Life itself is a term we humans use to describe organisms time of activity.

Theres no "meaning" to life!

Our purpose is to ecist and reproduce. We found other things to do aswell, but thats just the individuals lust, and therefore not a purpose.

Why?

Organisms(humans included) arent supposed to know the meaning of their ecistanse, since it would ruin their perspective life cyclus(also starting chain reactions with no proportions).

Questions and the answers to them?

If you knew the meaning of life, it would have been put into your higher senses(the urge to reproduce is a sense).

The reason why we ask ourselves the question, is because we are selfaware. Selfawareness is just a form of higher intelligense, and therefore it is natural to seek out questions to things we cant understand or find solutions to. Just because we cant see, hear, smell, taste, feel or sense the solution, then it doesnt mean it aint ecisting!

naturalistic pantheism is clearly wrong
The section on naturalistic pantheism states that "According to naturalistic pantheism, the meaning of life is to care for and look after nature and the environment." Being a naturalistic pantheist I have to strongly object with this statement. Naturalistic is meant as a rejection of the supernatural not some sort of hippie crap. Could somebody either change the section to state that we have no assigned meaning to living objects more than non-living? Or at least request a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.128.12 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)