Talk:Meaning of life

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)

Article Size

This page reads like new research. It is ponderous, with its most valuable bits buried deep within. The purpose of Wikipedia is to enlighten, top down. In this respect, the article fails. Why does this topic deserve exceptional treatment? The perspective should be unemotional, transcendental. This is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J. Chapman (talk • contribs) 06:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this article deserves an A. Superb! Not too long. Flute2!% (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be split up; the article is far too long. Vltava 68 06:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Split up in what way? Where would you suggest to split this article? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There was an argument before about whether the section "The meaning of life in pop culture" was encyclopedic, whether it was manageable even if accepted, etc. One possibility would be to split off that section. It is certainly long enough to stand on its own as an article. It would probably make the remaining article more encyclopedic. The higher visibility as a stand-alone article would also open the discussion to the wider Wikipedia community to decide whether the content is worthy of Wikipedia or needs be improved or deleted. -DoctorW 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We could keep it in the article, but cut it down severely. I would suggest removing the header part, which lists songs, books, and paintings, as well as the "popular views" sub-section. Neither of these are encyclopedic. In addition, the prose section could be pruned of the less-notable treatments of the issue. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

no, well leaving acool the question as to whether the popular culture content is encyclopedic, would splitting out only that content address the length issue? All of the existing sections are pretty huge too, because there seems to be a lot to say about the meaning of life. Maybe there's a better way to organize this article using several subarticles (with some overlap)? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to be off right now, but I want to make sure this stays near the top of my watchlist so I don't forget it again. I'll look at the sections. I can either look at re-arranging, or keeping the arrangement; either way we should be able to spin-off article and leave summaries here. But what of my suggestion about the pop culture section? Yay or nay, Nick? I see it as a necessary, though not sufficient, step, in addressing the article's length. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if we're going to split up this article, then for sure that will be have to be done. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just re-arranged the article, see the talk section below. Let me know if anyone has any objections. ←Spidern→ 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made cuts to the pop culture section; I removed the list bits, and from the prose section I removed every piece which was not referenced by a secondary RS. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was meaning to do some of that but had run out of time. The article is well it way to flowing better. I like splitting it into religion, philosophy and science, but as DoctorW expressed below we now have issue of deciding which comes first. It may help to have a better intro in summary-style (current one contains much OR and doesn't summarize the article very well). If we can summarize notable stances taken by each discipline using a paragraph for each one, maybe we can prepare the reader to parse the sections in the order presented. I would probably vote on Science, Philosophy, Religion as the order. ←Spidern→ 04:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for dealing with the pop culture section, not my area. I think we should keep the temporal theme throughout. While my personal biases would agree with the order proposed by Spidern, it's probably reversed for most people in the world. More significantly, the temporal order will make sense to people if it's consistent. Third, the science section is weak (at least the latter part), because not that much is known scientifically that directly addresses the issue, and some of what is in that section is someone's philosophizing on how to apply science to the question. Fourth, there was a historical progression from religion, splitting off philosophy from it (Enlightenment and 20th Century sections), and then splitting off natural philosophy (science). Fifth, Far Eastern thought does not have quite the same bifurcation as in the West, so the Far Eastern Religions subsection being right before the Philosophy section makes a nice transition. Sixth, ditto for 20th Century Philosophy followed by Science (otherwise Greek Philosophy follows Quantum mind and cosmic consciousness, and Western Religions come after 20th Century Philosophy). The present order creates a better flow of the whole article. Seventh, I believe this historical approach is more consistent with other articles that have a lot of input from historical ideas. -DoctorW 06:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Massive reorder

I have drastically changed the layout of this article. After the changes, the bulk of the article will be divided into Spiritual Perspectives, Philosophical Perspectives (with subsections for each time period), and Scientific perspectives. This should reduce the clutter, and help narrow down these individual schools of thought. All sub sections are ordered alphabetically. ←Spidern→ 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The philosophy section is still organized chronologically. Is there any advantage to alphabetizing only the spiritual section? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict: written before seeing Nick's agreement] I agree that it has some real strengths; in fact I was thinking of doing something very similar. The only weakness I see is that the main theme throughout the article is temporal; religious views are followed by the (largely later) philosophical views (with groupings), followed by scientific views; the one anomaly is religious views (with no groupings) listed alphabetically. Within philosophical views there is also a temporal progression: most would not agree with placing Aristotle before Plato (alphabetical). I feel very strongly that the religious views should be grouped (answers within groups have similarities) and that the remaining ordering follow the temporal pattern of the rest of the article. -DoctorW 03:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work, thank you. 2 issues:

1. First Scientific, then Philosophy, and later Spiritual - this order should be better.

2. The [[1]] Rembrandt image is repeated twice in the page.. once in Questions and then in Popular views.

- Niri M / ನಿರಿ 11:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

seems to be a pretty big typo

I really think that "Bertrand Russell wrote that although he found that his distaste for torture was like his distaste for broccoli" should read "Bertrand Russell wrote that although he found that his distaste for torture was NOT like his distaste for broccoli", and I cannot edit. 208.54.15.96 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)artman772000

uh, yeah... that would be a good thing. I mean, broccoli is bad, but...

(actually, I like broccoli. what am I saying?) --Ludwigs2 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to link with Purpose

The article really is too long. From the philosophy perspective, I claim, the question of most importance is, what is the meaning of the word meaning :-) put it more wisely, what does purpose mean really, why and when would you need purpose? What is the utility, less time spent around seemingly endless thoughts about death? What about meaningless life? Would we still be social humans if we didn't explain our actions and lack of actions. Isn't explaing an activity for group dynamics, just like religion? Factual concerns and questions about meaning of life, I claim, are related to religious inquiry, a call of an individual for religion. --Marttir (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

lol - well, you're tackling the question philosophically (which is a good thing in my book, but leans towards OR). the problem with this topic is that it just covers a mass of not-particularly-philosophical maunderings that people have been given to since... well, probably since we first learned to abstract things into words. the article is always going to be a bloated mess; best we can hope for is that it's a well-organized bloated mess. --Ludwigs2 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you are right, I tend to agree with your nice saying, "well-organized" ... mess, makes me smile. I re-read the article adopting this new perspective of yours, and really, it does not look bad at all. Nevertheless I must say the text before introduction is slightly lame, I think should state in a more straightforward fashion that Meaning of Life is related more to Religion than to Philosophy, and MoL is related to Metaphysics through discussion about consciousness, existence, life, purpose etc. --Marttir (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Forget religion and philosophy, doesn't the MoL come down to neurochemistry? Aren't we hardwired to look for patterns, for signs, for meaning in everything we do? Isn't what we call the "MoL" just a pattern that emerges from the overall system that exists to keep us going, reproducing and creating new copies, and ultimately surviving to do it all over again? Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of neurochemistry I would rather speak of Utilitarianism of consciousness, tendency to seek good feelings, may it be dark thoughts or reproductive activities and so on. The discuss I guess it is also be part of the pathology, neurochemistry, serving the structure of human continuum. Still I would ask, which is more fundamental motor, pleasure or the continuum. I claim that the human continuum is just a consequence of all the fun. --Marttir (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

But if meaning is created in the mind, how can we perceive meaning with the mind when we are simply generating it to begin with? If we ask, "what is the meaning of life" aren't we asking, what is the meaning of my life? But really, the question has nothing to do with life but with our minds. So, what is the meaning of my mind? How can I use my mind (which creates meaning) to discover what is meaningful? Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely lost the connection to purpose about the above posting. New words are thrown in the discussion like 'my' and 'mind' which are not self-evident within context (MoL). My point is, how is purpose different from meaning? Is the context really changed and how if I ask "What is the purpose of Life?" I am quite convinced that MoL, to some parts at least, has become a dead phrase i.e not interesting for contemporary philosophy. --Marttir (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nihilism

The article about Nihilism is clearly biased: "Despite tending towards defeatism or fatalism, one can find strength and reason in the varied, unique human relations nihilism explores." This sentence uses very vague language to say little about nihilism other than that it gives strength and reason to its followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikerps (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This:

"Ludwig Wittgenstein and the logical positivists said: Expressed in language, the question is meaningless; because, in life the statement the "meaning of x", usually denotes the consequences of x, or the significance of x, or what is notable about x, et cetera, thus, when the meaning of life concept equals "x", in the statement the "meaning of x", the statement becomes recursive, and, therefore, nonsensical, or it might refer to the fact that biological life is essential to having a meaning in life."

doesn't make sense, or is not well-expressed. The statement seems to be saying that if you set "meaning of life" equal to x, and if you set "life" equal to x, then "meaning of life = something" equals "meaning of x = x" which is recursive. Why would you set both terms to the same value? How is it recursive otherwise? Please bitch clarify and/or expand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.50.216 (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the dispute tag related to this section. Unless there is something we can actually fix, there's no need for the tag. Viriditas (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of Life

As something like a "meaning" or "sense" of Life can exist:

Universal meaning \ sense of Life is Evolution.

Animal meaning \ sense of Life is Progress.

--Faustnh (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion for improving this article? That's really the purpose of the talk page - not to discuss the topic of the article, but to discuss how to improve the article. EastTN (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Being honest, I think I must say I don't have a specific suggestion for improving the article, that would be accepted by administrator wikipedians. You can delete my annotation above if you consider appropriate to do so. Best regards. --Faustnh (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't really comprehensive without any discussion of drugs/plants of power/direct experience/shamanism. I appreciate the idea of doing a survey of various religions, but how could it come close to being complete without any mention of the Elusinian) mysteries, LSD and the changing ideas about life it catalyzed and catalyzes, Shamanism, the Native American Church, Santo Daime, or direct ingestion of plant-based sacraments that's accompanied the evolution of humanity and our ideas about the meaning of life since... well, nobody has any idea how long, but certainly well before the advent of writing, and possibly even language itself. Hidden messages about plant-based sacraments may be hidden in ancient symbols or legends which have become familiar though their original meanings may have been obscured or lost (Santa Claus, the Reindeer, and the Amanita Muscaria, would come to mind as one well-known example). People on every continent, for countless millennia, and to this day have sought to have life's secrets revealed through changing one's own consciousness. I think it would improve the article to at least acknowledge so much history alongside the mainstream religions. 69.107.88.184 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo in the hitchhikers guide section

"What do you get when you multiply six by nine?"

That should be "seven" not "Nine" as it's supposed to be 6 x 7 = 42, and 6 x 9 does not equal 42. I would change it myself, but I can't....

Nope, it's not a typo. Seven is what written in the book. Read here. —Fa2f (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the first guy is right. In The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Arthur Dent, having escaped the Earth's destruction, potentially has some of the computational matrix in his brain. He attempts to discover The Ultimate Question by extracting it from his brainwave patterns, as abusively suggested by Marvin the Paranoid Android, when a Scrabble-playing caveman spells out forty two. Arthur pulls random letters from a bag, but only gets the sentence "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?"

“

"Six by nine. Forty two." "That's it. That's all there is." "I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe"

”

Actual Freedom

Need to add the Actual Freedom related text:

Thus the meaning of life that ‘humans’ experience (either a philosophical or a spiritual meaning of life) is only an illusory meaning of life and not the actual meaning of life. (...) The ‘meaning of life’ – or the ‘secret to life’ or the ‘riddle of existence’ or the ‘purpose of the universe’ or whatever the goal of one’s quest may be called – is already always just here right now in this actual world ... it is that identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is preventing that meaning from being open to view. (...) [What I recall is that] as every time a PCE occurred the ‘meaning of life’ became apparent it was increasingly obvious to ‘me’ that it was here all the time – that it already had been and always would be irregardless of ‘my’ presence or absence – and that all ‘I’ had to do for it to be apparent was to disappear. It is all rather magical.

Marxism

The very short text under Marxism seems, if not biased, at least very simplified. Whereas all the other "major" ideologies get their claims supported by argumentation, Marxism does not. To simply say that the meaning of life according to Marxists is to serve one another sounds to me like either a sort of dismissive way of handling something that the author is not familiar with or a way of portraying a complex thought so that it seems less advanced in comparison. Any meaning of life reference to Marxism should speak of how Marx (and later Marxists) view man fullfilling his destiny through his work. This is not to serve others, but rather the realization that man is a social animal that sets him self apart from the rest of the animals through his creational process.

Birkovic (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

citation request in "Christianity" section

The notion that we are saved by grace through faith in God is found in Ephesians 2:8-9 - (8) For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; (9)not as a result of works, that no one should boast." (New American Standard Bible; 1973)

BJGill (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC) BJGill

editsemiprotected - change 'human-centric' to 'anthropocentric'

I think the term 'human-centric' (second paragraph) sounds a little clumsy and would read better as 'anthropocentric' and would appreciate it if an established user could change this on my behalf. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markuspretzel (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

regarding article on absurdism

If the universe allows you to get what ever meaning you like out of it, then surely it is full of different meanings, rather than meaning less. And even if we grant this premise, it cannot be absurd to find meaning in your own life. Otherwise it would be absurd to create anything where there was nothing before, i.e. CREATE ANYTHING. It follows that it would be absurd to do anything. Absurdity is the working towards an aim that cannot be achieved, or a pointless exercise. That is not the case here. Having a meaning in life can be it's own point, and it is also possible for a meaning to the universe to be created. In conclusion, the premise is most likely wrong a posteriori, and the logic is definitely wrong a priori. To inform the uneducated mind of such theories is to confuse them or waste their time, and so against the very purpose of education on this subject. It becomes an education in history instead, and so should be moved. Thank you.Natmanprime (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Unconscious and conflicted meanings

The meaning in some peoples lives is organised around conflicting and un- or semi-conscious desires, for example what an ocd sufferer or person with pathological guilt finds meaningful. What do you think of adding such sources of meaning and a survey of ideas on conflicts around meaning to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitespace (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic value of the popular views section

I realize that this section is well sourced, but what value does this section give to this article? It is basically a laundry list of any opinion someone has voiced that can have a reference attached to it. How does this improve the quality of this article? Would this article be of greater quality if this content was removed or modified in some way? How can this section be changed to increase the health of this article? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 08:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Undemocractic article

Shouldn't we divide the number of words per people accepting that idea? And putting the most accepted meaning of life in order? Or set it up in time line order, rather than stating philosophical views above religious, since I'm sure philosophical views add poor meaning to life according to those who reference suicide and belief. Perhaps we should put the meaning of life in the order first of those who practice the least amount of suicide and produce the most children? Of course a timeline of meanings of life would solve this issue of bias against religion, especially in the case of Islam which gets so little mention but results in more meaning of life than all the others according to suicide rates. Faro0485 (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but I wouldn't take suicide rates as a measurement of how much meaning people have in their lives. Threats can make people do things they don't want to do. Fear of hell can make people shy away from suicide... it doesn't mean that these people have found meaning or reward in their lives. I would argue on first thought that it's probably Muslims who have the lowest suicide rate (if this is true) because these are a greater % of practising to passive Muslims than Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeUser5050 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Christianity Section, POV and possible fix

"In the Christian view ... the Fall of Man caused the progeny of the first Parents to inherit Original Sin."

Not all Christians believe this way, this sounds like a Roman Catholic pov, we do not all believe in the concept of Original Sin.

Perhaps it should be said that that is true of Western Christianity but in Eastern Christianity (don't put all of this, just a summary it would be too long otherwise i think, but if you don't mind go ahead) "The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos. The Greek Fathers emphasized the metaphysical dimension of the Fall of Man, whereby Adam's descendants are born into a fallen world, but at the same time held fast to belief that, in spite of that, man remains free.[2]"

and the [2] is linked to- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Sin#cite_note-ODCC-1

from the page- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Sin#Eastern_Christianity

I also suggest removing the picture of The Last Judgement and the weighing of souls, removing it would be easier than posting all the other p.o.v.'s on the Last Judgement.

Ranosonar (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this dude :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.135.129.129 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Instinctivism

The section on instinctivism is unsourced and rife with spelling/grammatical mistakes. Moreover, googling "instinctivism" doesn't come up with any really decent explanations of what this is supposed to be. Are we talking original research here? I mean, yeah, obviously deep down a lot (most?) of human action can be described as guided by basic instincts, but that's not what people talk about when they talk about the meaning of life. One could take it one step further and insist that all there really is are atoms moving in the void and not instincts, so that atomic motion is the meaning of life. It's true that atomic motion is all there is, but that doesn't mean that human's don't find higher-level meaning in life. 83.77.87.28 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are "googling", but try books and scholars, there's lots of information. It currently reads like original research, so I'll tag it as such. It looks like they are referring to the "instinctivism" of Konrad Lorenz, which has probably evolved into the sociobiology and evolutionary psychology we know today. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Added the adjective "Western" to "Philosophical perspectives"

I added the adjective "Western" to "Philosophical perspectives" as that section only covers Western Philosophies. I am no philosopher and mean no disrespect but I know that non-western philosophies have also pondered over the meaning of life. Even this article lists non-western philosophies under the heading of "Religious perspectives". I believe that is not correct. But since I don't have sufficient expertise in this area, I have restricted my edits to the minor change I mentioned before.

I hope of my more enlightened friends will clean up the rest of the article so that it accurately reflects worldwide interest in and attempts to grapple with this most important of questions. Thank you!

Rahul January 28, 2009

non-western

It seems there is no information on african views on the meaning of life. Western philosophy seems to be the only direction given any creedence these days... I'm not in any kind of position to fill in the details, but I dearly missed the non-european view while reading the article. Tlolsen (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Eastern views are also included, but as to the lack of African views, yes we probably have a slight systemic bias problem due to lack of contributors knowledgable about African views on the meaning of life. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Misspelling

"Shimeon the Rightous" should be Simeon_the_Righteous. Main page not editable by me. (Rcorell)

Y Done - thanks, AV3000 (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Universe keeps going...then...?

"However, no matter how the universe came into existence, humanity's fate in this universe appears to be doomed as —even if humanity would survive that long— biological life will eventually become unsustainable, be it through a Big Freeze, Big Rip, or Big Crunch. It would seem that the only way to survive indefinitely would be by directing the flow of energy on a cosmic scale and altering the fate of the universe."

This is all we get as far as this, and while facts (cold and "confronting" as always) are perhaps the only thing necessary, the title of this article led me to believe that there would be more about what these events, er, mean, at least in a philosophical sense. I mean to say...even if our distant descendants/robot overlords/some other species entirely figure out a way to 'survive indefinitely', what then are the potential issues with that? Does this make sense, what I'm saying? I mean, what then, so the Universe, or artificial universe, or whatever we have attained at that point, just goes on forever? To what? "We"/They/It reaches either end of the technological spectrum, yes, sure, fine and dandy, but then WHAT? Even if sentient life reaches the point at which it has "mastered the universe", any fate which would be "opted" for or controlled or participated would still be subjective; and any universal-altering scenario it could not participate in would still be beyond it's comprehension (such as a breakdown in the known laws of physics). I hope this is making sense. If anything, I'm looking for both personal opinions and for inclusion of more theories on the subject within the article. I know this may enter the realms of science fiction, but, technically speaking, in an "infinite" universe, one must acknowledge that all situations outlined in science fiction might eventually, somewhere, come to pass. But again, this probably sounds childish. And while your obligations to talk page policy might dissuade you from getting into philosophical ramblings here, one day, too, this encyclopedia and the hardware on which it is stored might not exist, so perhaps you should consider that enlightening a wee little organism like myself is a loftier goal than, say, strict adherence to policy. I know, I know -- the depths of Wikiheresy, I know. But for metaphor's sake, consider it the difference between the concept of bonding with a child while building a sandcastle, or getting way too serious about the architecture of said sandcastle. Only now you know the Wikisandcastle and the information it is built of will eventually be swallowed up by universal tides. 76.28.169.130 (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Leap of Faith

The Soren Kierkegaard page on Wikiquote says that the term "Leap of Faith" is misattributed to him. This is contradictory to the Meaning of Life page. Also the source which "One can live meaningfully (free of despair and anxiety) in an unconditional commitment to something finite, and devotes that meaningful life to the commitment, despite the vulnerability inherent to doing so." comes from seems to be confused. Read any book by Kierkegaard and you will see that it is not an "unconditional commitment to something finite", but an unconditional commitment to God that he is concerned about. Perhaps that citation was misquoted.

Mydearreader (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC) MyDearReader

Link request

Hi I have a simplified video site at www.sentience.tv that looks at some of the issues around the meaning of life. It's a basic intro but would be of use to people grabbling with this issue for the first time. The site offers all the videos for free and is non profit making. I hope you get the chance to look at it and agree to the link Kind Regards Richard 86.170.204.189 (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Logotherapy

Logotherapy could be added to the article, as it is about Man's search for meaning. 92.15.2.231 (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonesense

"This places Christianity in stark contrast to other religions which claim that believers are justified with God through adherence to guidelines or law given to us by God."

The above is sheer nonesense. Only Protestantism actually accepts Justification by faith alone (Sola Fide), where else the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church (Oriental & otherwise) along with the Church of the East vehemently reject this in favor of Faith & good deeds. Protestanism is the minority of Christianity, since the Orthodox boast about 400 million and the Catholic Church 1 billion - thats 70% of Christianity.

So please make this embarrassing mistake go away. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of Life Competition

{{edit semi-protected}}

The worlds first ever meaning of life competition will be running the whole of 2011. The competition is seeking the answer to that age old question of what is the meaning of life. To enter the competition please visit the Meaning of Life Competition Page Sbourn (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC) GPS

Not done: The page you've linked is not a source of encyclopedic information. Please be aware that Wikipedia must not be used as a vehicle for promotion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Teleological, "Western" Bias in the lead

I hate to be a douche, but in the lead, the word "purpose" in conjunction with "significance" is used exclusively. At first glance this may be nothing to notice, so to speak. But "purpose" is a word denoting teleological...ontology. What have you, there is an entire world of outside of economic ("growth-related") constraints for some of us, and this world eventually ends up as a "more more more" consumerist struggle. So we go back, back to the world where purpose was implicit, where the question "why" is not brought back into light. A world of games and so forth.

So the Western conceptions of growth hit the Confucian conceptions of stability and...what I'm trying to say is that the lead needs some more "Eastern" influence. The word "purpose" stings as almost evangelical doesn't it? Its difficult to tease out, but there is something there. In the name of neutrality, may both sides be presented. To wit, the lead needs, yes, I'm saying it, a little bit more Yin.64.150.152.86 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it, but I'm sure your changes will be scrutinized for consistency. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of life (By Stephen Broehl)

What choice will consciousness observe? If "the answer" is consciousness."The question" is, choice. Then, what choice will consciousness observe? ( In other words i have found "consciousness" to be the answer to all things and "choice" to be the question to all things. EXCEPT for this here). = What choice will consciousness observe? The closest i can come up with is= Consciousness will observe the meaning of its choice...... . (But there needs to be more to that or it simply dose not make scene.).

What choice will consciousness observe?

Consciousness will observe the meaning of its choice.

What is the conscious meaning of the observation?

The act of perceiving an occurrence for purpose.

What purpose has enough meaning for occurrence from consciousness?

The act of consciousness perceiving its self.

What choice will consciousness observe?

Consciousness will always choose the conscious observation of perceiving its self for the act of meaning to its purpose. 

For example: What is the meaning of life? = The meaning of life is to perceive its self for its own purpose. "Meaning of life made simple" is= For consciousness (human beings) to perceive meaning in the act of giving them selves purpose. =) So pretty much, its experiencing you're own consciousness in the action of purpose. And that is the meaning of life. And you find purpose simply by observation. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.157.35 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I am waiting for comments on this subject. =) Feel free. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.159.89 (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)