we do joke about it, but I would really like an intelligent discussion:

I was talking to a dear friend tonight who has had trials and tribulations of her own at a young age, and she is stronger than even she knows.

She was talking about how she admires me, because she believes no matter what I take it and move on without vengeance and still have optimism. (No, I'm not that perfect, or strong, but it does bring up an interesting question).

I believe that hope is truly the meaning of life. (In my opinion that is the reason that humanity created "God's" or "God's and Goddesses - depending on your religious beliefs). Think about it, all the masses of people that will follow their chosen religion, and for what? Muslim, Hebrew, Christian, Wiccan.... no matter the religion, a baseline is that there is a higher power, and people believe in it ... that it will make it right, or there is a plan, or there is something better.

The true question here is, no matter the following and fellowship inherent in your chosen religion, what is it that draws you to it? What part of it gives you hope?

It's supposed to give me hope?? Knew i was missing something


Honestly tho... I'm not sure that there is a higher power.*shrugs*

It is fear that gives birth religion. The fear of the unknown, death. The fear that mom and dad are not just food for worms. That little Billy went to a paradise after he suffered and died from cancer. That if you don't believe, you go to a bad place. And if you do believe, your death brings nirvana, virgins, peace, endless love, etc.

Some very smart men got together a long time ago and found an easy way to control the masses, even kings. Fear is the cornerstone to the control in these religions. You can say you "hope" to go to Heaven. But it is the "fear" of going to Hell that keep these beliefs alive, the power in the hands of the religious leaders, and the money in the basket.

Do I believe in a higher power? I'd like to think there's something beyond this place. And I'd like to believe that child murders will pay for their wickedness. But honestly, I think religion is a bunch of nonsense. I don't think a billion Chinese are going to Hell because they don't believe in Jesus. That just makes no sense at all. There is no logic in saying one religion is better than the other.

But more to the question you pose here. I was born Catholic, lots of dogma and guilt. I find myself very far from it today due in large part to the priest sex abuse scandal. For decades, if not centuries, the church not only knew about these crimes but actually hid them and protected their own. The whole thing makes me sick. And to make matters worse, it was the most innocent of all they didn't protect. They allowed the victimization of children... I just don't understand it.

Religion is responsible for so much hatred and death in the world. It is divisive and leads to walls around people, cultures, and countries. Most of them, if not all, cast woman as 2nd class citizens, slaves.

I believe John Lennon had it right in his song "Imagine."

It's time people stop placing this "hope" you speak of in a higher power, an afterlife, and starting placing their hope and belief in each other in this life.

John Lennon's "Imagine" is like the Communist Manifesto with a beat. I hate that damned song. It's so fucking pretentious it makes me physically sick.



Ultimately? I don't think there is any one great question. Existence is it's own purpose. What makes you happy doesn't have to have a reason; it's good to question things, but you should learn to be content without the answers first.

Maybe having the anwers is no where near as important as the actualy quest to find them.

Neon

Unlike the Communist Manifesto there is no state, organization, party, boarders, religion, and or manifesto governing people in Lennon's song. Perhaps if you'd stop trying to read into it so much and take it for what it is, (a simple song of love, peace, and brotherhood) you wouldn't feel the need to vomit every time you heard it.

But since music is, as is all art, subjective. Enjoy your gut cleaning.

BTW... "Stormfront" isn't the answer.

For me, the meaning of life is in this life first.
Freedom of will, to choose which path you take, which choices you make.
This life and how you live it is a base for the next life, learning stages.
I try to choose "the right thing" but this is sometimes hard ofcourse.

I get hope out of little things in life, small gestures of another person or just appreciating my surroundings.
I also get hope/calmness from praying/talking to G'd (directly, not priests or other persons in between), which is like somesort of evaluation of how things are going. And doing the rituals/holidaycelebrations to feel connected with all the generations and lives that were before me, to do something physical aside from the choices I make in life to appreciate G'd/life.

It gives me strength to deal with my past and all that has happened in life, to think it is all to learn from and to gain intelligence and strength and feeling from. Playing life with the cards you got handed to you so to speak and trying to make it balanced out.
G'd doesn't make it right, you have the choices to make yourself.

After this life (and/or other lives) I believe in a spiritual state/energy, some call it heaven, Gan Eden, or The world to come.

These are my personal beliefs (which are in Judaism)


I also don't think religion is responsible for the fear and hatred in the world as someone said earlier, I think it is the people that misuse religion who do that. Using it to better themselves.

oh really????? eye of the beholder and all that????? right.......

anywho....."hope" huh....interesting notion, but i don't buy it.....

first off, i agree with Messiah.....existence is as existence is......but what does make us happy does need reasoning.....i think that the furthest you can go (avoiding nihilism of course) is existentialism.....and yes, i preach on and on about existentialism (i luv it), but i figure thatz where you can draw the bottom line....

itz not hope, itz not fear, it just is.........i mean, sure may have "hope" and others may have "fear"....but no matter what side your on, there you are......

as for this "higher power"....religion isn't the only thing that believes in a higher power....some science and some philosophy even bring about the notion of a "higher power"....but that doesn't necessarily mean there's something more grand awaiting us after our physical bodies die....itz just the idea that the physical was created by something metaphysical which existed first....metaphysical bein' that which is more "grand" in the scope of things (i.e. essence), thus is the "necessary being" that created it all......doesn't mean itz some holier than thou being sittin' on a throne with a white robe and long beard sayin' "BE GOOD!"

and i don't think "hope" or "fear" are the reasons man created gods.....it is my understanding that man created gods for the mere sake of reasoning....why does it rain? 'cuz some god wills it so.......in many ways this view has not changed.....it just went from a god makes rain to an understanding of atmospheric conditions and heat and cold and all of that nonsense makes rain......still the same reasoning, just different in itz approach....one provides physical facts while the other just claims "sumtin'" causes rain....same answer really....

...I'd say it's the part that says in order to have hope, you have to give it to others.

Like i said before;religion is only made by humans to take advantage and control you,like some kind of invisible despotism.
Every religion will promise you an eternal and beautiful life in some kind of paradise IF only you follow their guidelines.
As they know everybody fears his own mortality,they'll take most advantage of it and play you like a puppet.


Besides that.

Their is no meaning of life or reason for living.
It's just random foolery made up by a comedy of religions making you believe you're existence has purpose,which is bullshit,you have no more value or reason for living than the bug you crushed yesterday.
We are not special or just another species of animals walking around this world searching for the things we need,nothing more nothing less.

Lots of "?" there.

FACT: All art is subjective.

This might be true to some religions, not in mine though.
It is very clear about "the next world" and everyone will get there, good or bad, jew or non jew, gay or straight, etc etc.
We also have no "Hell" like other religions are very clear about, but a "soulcleaning period" ("gehinnom") after all your learninglives, which will take longer or shorter depending on the way you lead your life.

I respect everyones views, please just try not to generalise ;-)

FACT: you are not correct and you obviously know nothing of aestheticism....so shhh

not to go off on some tanget about this or that and all the philosophical concepts pertaining to art, i'll end this real briefly....Jean-Paul Sartre in his "Essays In Existentialism" had a rather intriguing idea pertaining to "objective" vs' "subjective" which is really what existentialism is, and art is also a nice lil' tie in with existentialism (Nietzsche himself, one of the key players in existentialism, was absolutely obsessed with aestheticism..."The Birth of Tragedy"....very interesting essay pertaining to "art" and greeks....i suggest you read it)....anywho, i'm going on a rant.....ALL art is subjective?........well, not to point out every illogical justification behind this, i'll just give a brief example....do you consider "writing" as art? well i sure as hell do.....and as such, i consider "prose" writing also as a form of art....now you tell me how "prose" can be anything but objective if indeed it is prose....in other words, to give an example, you read an "owners manual" for a stereo.....how is that subjective? what other meaning can be derived other than "connect the A wire to the A slot"?????......this is objective....this is a mere example of a type of prose....not the best analogy, but an example nontheless...prose, which is art, is not subjective....hence, not all art is subjective....

or, another analogy if you'd like.....math....do you consider math art? how is math in anyway subjective?

what you may consider as art, or worthy of being recognized as art, can be subjective.....but nonetheless, all art is not subjective.....guy A considers math art, you don't = subjective......math as an art = objective

for further consideration on this topic and my views on "art" and the ever cliche "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" i suggest you search for a thread titled "is killing/murder art?" in this very philosophy section here at DF......resurrect if you'd like.....i truly love discussing the philosophy of art....


ANYWHO, BACK ON TOPIC
and i think ERESH CLOUDY has it right....many of you are generalizing what "religion" is aiming to do......not every religion believes in an after life.....a number of your eastern worldviews believe solely in this life and how one may achieve peace in this life.....why? well, why not? better to live happy than miserable eh?

i for one do not believe in religion, and yet i ponder if there is an after life.....doesn't mean it's all glorious and all that......St. Augustine himself, a very popular Medieval Theologian, (theologians as you know are religious philosophers [so to speak]), and evidently he must have been great if indeed the vatican or whoever awarded him with the title of a "Saint".....anywho, it was his thought that the "after life" wasn't as grand as the Church was making it out to be.....he thought the "after life" didn't contain a heaven or a hell, but just rather a sense of existening without perception......meaning, since your physical body is no longer with you when you're dead, thus only your soul is left, how is it possible for such a soul to perceive? without eyes, "sight" cannot function.....so there you are, dead, your soul being where ever it is souls go, and there it is, all alone, with no comprehension, no perception, no memory, etc. etc. etc........how great is that?!

so yeah, stop generalizing about religions and the beliefs of religious men......like i said before, i know very little about religion or their ideals, but i find it very interesting that a man awarded with the title of "Saint" and who was quite possibly one of the leading theologians ever, and if i'm not mistaken, also has the most "writings" in history....or has some of the most....i know all the man did in life was write and write and write and write.....anywho, i find it interesting that such a man, who was religious, who believed in God, who worked for the Church, he himself believed that the "after life" would suck!

...and where's you're undisputited proof of that?

Surely you jest? If you wish to lay your whole argument in the lap of a philosophical idea, I reserve the right to dismiss aestheticism as you have me here with your silly "shhh." I also reserve the right to call what you seem to have labeled as proof positive of your position (i.e., aestheticism) as "pure crap." There, now I've dismissed you as arrogantly as you have me. That was easy enough.

If you consider a technical manual "art" that is your subjective opinion. To me, all writing is not art. Just as a painted wall of a house is not the same as a painting by Picasso. But your belief that a owners manual is art actually supports my argument, in that, art is in the "eye of the beholder." Your belief "that it is" becomes completely subjective just as if someone looked at the side of that painted house and thought it was beautiful in color and or architecture. A businessman may find a speech about corporate takeovers as art. Why? Because to him it becomes thought provoking and creative. Speech writing or owner manual writing may be considered by some as art and or art form... but again, subjective.



No... do you? Some may. Look, I know where you are going with this. I've studied and debated the idea you preach here. I've taken several classes on the philosophy you speak of.

Let me make this clear... The art I am referring to. What I consider art to be, is and forever will be subjective. You may find a 1971 Corvette, art... I may not (although I do). You may want to take a picture of dog shit and call it art... I may think it was just a picture of dog shit and not thought provoking. Again, subjective. Almost anything on the planet could and may be considered art... "in the eye of the beholder"... again, subjective.

Just to label something as art (i.e., stereo manual) is subjective. To define what art is or isn't IS subjective.

I don't necessarily buy you or Nietzsche views on what is or isn't subject and or objective. I may chose to dismiss the philosophy altogether. Why? Because a philosophy may not fit into my own reality of what I consider truths. Therefore what Thoreau or Plato may see as truths may not be so to me in my own existence and understanding of it.

Wrong.

I don't consider math as art... subjective. You consider math as art... subjective. Math itself... objective.

When you say, "math as an art = objective" your use of the word "art" becomes a completely subjective term. Math is objective... as an art? I guess that depends on who you ask, don't ya think?

Thank you for pointing that out. I'll pass and live in the moment. I don't mean to sound "dismissive" as I'm sure it's pure genius on your part.

<snicker>

All kidding aside, I am glad to see that this site actually has people with something to say. Perhaps I'll stick around and delight you with my thoughts on, "Bubble Gum: The New Religion" next.

oh my....you're too cute...

first off, you just basically said everything i said.....what one considers as worthy of being called "art" may be subjective....i agree with you, you agree with me....good, let's move on.....but that doesn't mean ALL ART IS subjective......you're twisting two different concepts to say the same thing....

let's start with the basics, shall we? what modes of expression are worthy of bein' labeled as art-forms?

you have music, painting, drawing, photography, video, writing, dance, etc. etc. etc.......i think we can all agree that these modes of expression are worthy of bein' labeled as art-forms

nonetheless, you have other modes of expression which can also be labeled as art-forms.....prose writing, mathematics, science, philosophy, chess, the lil' puerto-rican woman who paints your finger nails......

now, whether or not you include the latter as bein' labeled as art-forms is purely subjective......NONETHELESS, if someone believes them to be an art-form, they have that right.....it is a mode of expression, it requires technique and understanding, and itz something that can be admired by on-lookers.......therefore, whether or not YOU m'dear consider it art is purely subjective to your thoughts, but that doesn't mean they're not worthy of bein' labeled as an art-form......thus, since math is indeed worthy of bein' labeled an art-form (whether or not you think it is), it must be considered within the philosophical discussion of "ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE"

now we turn to the modes themselves......is painting, music, drawing, photography, etc. etc. etc. all subjective? well there's a very good argument and justification that yes it is subjective.......is math subjective? absolutely not......is prose subjective? absolutely not......thus, you're theory that "ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE" is flawed in itz logic.....it doesn't matter how you try to refute it, you can go on and on and on about it, but the bottom line is that no matter what you or i or a third-party might consider what is and what is not worthy of bein' labeled as art should not limit the scope of what could be labeled as art.......and are you so ignorantly willing to accept that there is no mode of expression that cannot be purely objective?

secondly, to go a lil' more in depth, what is the aim of art? of any mode of expression for that matter? to create some sort of feeling or thought.....yes? is that not what all art aims to do? it wants to make you laugh, it wants to make you cry, smile, be pissed, disgusted, angry....it also wants you to ask yourself: is this art? that is objective....that is art's objective....period....thus, one could also argue "ART ISN'T SUBJECTIVE" based on this idea, but then that's more of "symantic" argument now isn't it? but then again, this is philosophy.....

now, you say you studied this before, and that you've studied some philosophy before.....this made me laugh somewhat simply because you stated:

i don't know what you were tryin' to say with that.....darlin', "aestheticism" isn't proof positive of my position, "aestheticism" IS the philosophy of art......much like "existentialism" is the philosophy of the self/being.....much like the "Problem of Evil" is the philosophy of, well evil....much like "theology" is religious philosophy....much like "dualism" is the philosophy of metaphysics and physics.....yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.....it's just a "title" for a type of philosophy....

what we're discussin' is "aestheticism" darlin'......itz the philosophy of art....your philosophy on art is "ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE".........but you have yet to provide sound logic darlin'......you just came in and said "ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE".....that ain't gonna cut-it here....certainly not with me.....if you want to say "ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE" then by all means, please provide a justification......you have yet to provide a justification......

now, i'm not saying that my justification is "proof positive," but until you can provide a justification for "ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE" while taking the time to consider the possibility of what modes of expression can be justly labeled as an art-from (and you seem to be in agreement with me, since you claim that although you yourself don't view math as an art-form, doesn't mean that you don't think math can't be justly labeled as an art-form), and also concern yourself with objective goal of art, then we'll get somewhere.......as it stands, my justification that "ALL ART ISN'T SUBJECTIVE" is logically sound at this present time....doesn't mean it's valid......thatz a whole different realm of logic altogether....though i'd be willing to bet that there's more validy for "ALL ART ISN'T SUBJECTIVE" than "ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE".....

but, to sum up, i just wanna say that:

1. i am a philosopher and this is my passion...i love to discuss philosophy, but philosophy isn't a "belief" m'dear....it is very much so a "science".....many who don't truly know what philosophy is fail to realize this.....it's a mode of science that incorporates abstract thoughts and symantics to arrive to a logically valid and sound justification....or as best as it can.....which is exactly what science does, except science incorporates arbitrary facts to arrive to a logically valid and sound justification.........

2. welcome to DF and welcome to the philosophy section......most of us here spend a lot of time understanding philosophy.....please feel free to join it at anytime, but when you're going to make a claim, please give some sort of justification.......i mean, many come in here and don't, and that's just aggravating and belittles us......this is philosophy, this isn't Joe-Schmo arguin' on the street corner

3. if in anyway i have offended you or belittled you, i sincerely apologize....that is not my intention......my intention is solely to make you think......to make you understand just a lil' bit more about what philosophy truely is......i do not claim to be all-knowing or the perfect philosopher by any means.....99% of the time i just use philosophical arguments and justifications to help others further their arguments and justifications.....believe what you want, but don't confuse belief with philosophy.....it is a science and there's a lot that goes into it......