Talk:Meaning of life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Meaning of life article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Peer review Meaning of life has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Spirituality Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.

This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article or list is a nominee for the Version 0.7 release of Wikipedia. See the nominations page for more details.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Meaning of life.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Talk:Meaning of life/Archive1

Contents

[edit] 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. --NickPenguin(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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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#Mystical teachings looked a little more on topic. Cheers, --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --NickPenguin(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". --NickPenguin(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. --NickPenguin(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. --NickPenguin(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, --NickPenguin(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? --NickPenguin(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. --NickPenguin(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? --NickPenguin(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. --NickPenguin(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. --NickPenguin(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. --NickPenguin(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. --NickPenguin(contribs) 11:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "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. --NickPenguin(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. --NickPenguin(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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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.[1][2][3][4]


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)

[edit] 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 — Ashmodai (talk · 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#Scientific_approaches_to_the_meaning_of_life again, I think you will find it mirrors your views almost exactly. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) ````

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? --NickPenguin(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]
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. --NickPenguin(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. --NickPenguin(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. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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#Historical roots --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. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:54, 1 June 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)