Why "Creating Your Own Purpose" Might be a Mistake
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Clip taken from Within Reason episode 22 with Bishop Robert Barron: • A Bishop and an Atheis...
Within Reason is a weekly podcast hosted by Alex O'Connor (CosmicSkeptic). Episodes are released every Sunday.
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Catch full episodes and more videos on the main UA-cam channel: / alexjoconnor
If you like Within Reason content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic
Other people created these great works of art, solved incredible math, etc. but these are tangible, real people.
When I say “I create my own purpose” I don’t mean the only things I care about come from within myself. What I mean is that I recognize that some things in objective reality make me happy, and those are the things I will pursue.
I genuinely find taking pleasure in our limited time here, worth while. I don’t need more, I don’t need a beyond, I don’t need a greater purpose. The act of living, and experiencing alone, it’s enough and has meaning.
So I’m not arbitrarily “creating” purpose like counting blades of grass.
In a sense, if my life is a river, for the most part I allow myself to be swept along in the current, for it to take me where it will. I might swim from side to side when I see something new or interesting, but ultimately I accept that the river will push me downstream. There will be rapids and waterfalls, but there will also be calm.
I don’t consider this coping. It’s accepting. It’s appreciating the precious little time you have.
Well put.
Also, “discovering your purpose” seems like such a futile attempt even just to begin with. What would there be to become the kind of seal or mark that what we have discovered is indeed “the purpose” some would argue that it’s the feeling meaningful or sense of peace but it’s just sound very abstracted and such a weak argument. And also what is feeling meaningful is really? Isn’t it but a sensation of dopamine reward system we feel when we feel like we are making progress and if our life for us seems to make sense?
Imho im not sure and this is more of an open ended question rather than an opinion but im suspicious if the premise of “life’s purpose” is a predominantly Judaism thing?
@@s_215 rather create our own meaning here since all we do as humans here is evolve , or Atleast are supposed to mentally, physically and spiritually.. (even if you don’t believe in that spiritual aspect) its better feeling stronger within to reflect on the world that is out, fuck the nihilistic pov .
I think the lines between inventing and discovering ones values is so thin as to be meaningless to draw in the first place, at least on an individual psychological (Solipsistic) level.
When when you bring in constraints of Society/Collectivity (Big Other) and Material/Matter (The Real), your ability to invent values for a large part vanishes for good or bad.
But in the end value is not grounded in any one thing but in multiple different areas of human experience/intersectional.
I think the Psycho Analyst Lacan has a great model for explaining Value Structure. (Lacan>Plato)
Every contingency is read as necessity, and all necessity is ultimately contingent, in a sort of Dialectical way. (Hegel)
What Pell calls adhering to objective values to me just sounds like living in tune with our evolved instincts and preferences.
Does he think atheists don’t experience these apophany / showings/breakthroughs ? Does he honestly think atheists experience the world differently/ in a lesser way to his? If so seems kind of arrogant.
Yup. That’s exactly what he thinks. If you don’t have the delusion of invisible silent sky dada Yahweh, following you around with a bag of magic tricks, and promising you immortality and pleasure paradise for infinity, life is unbearable.
That is not what I heard him say.
@@bisratezra8247 ok
No, he is not saying it at all. He clearly said that atheists can and do live meaningful lives ordered to the objective value. But for him this objective value is ultimately nesting or grounded in God, the source of all what is true and beautiful and good. Well, this is how I understood him.
@@marekbalog4286 i dont question that he thinks that, i heard him, i question if he honesty thinks atheists experience the world differently from what he is experienceing/discribeing. Grounding or not.
Cuz it sounds as if he does, and it sounds arrogant, because there is no way for him to know, since the experiences he talks about are all based on self reporting.
So who is to decide which these high values are or should be? The ones who write religious books? The ones that invent gods?
When that guy speaks, I hear 'white noise'. As with all religious people, he uses the term "atheist" as though it describes a different species. One could even use the emerging pronoun protocols in objecting to being labelled that. Why should someone be called a name for 'not' believing in something? What do you call someone who doesn't believe that the world is flat?
I also notice he just refers to Jordan Peterson as 'Peterson". Shouldn't that be Dr. Peterson as a professional courtesy?
"Why "Creating Your Own Purpose" Might be a Mistake" Yeah, it is much better if you have someone else give you meaning. /s
Have you ever considered the option of objective purpose?
@@antoniusnies-komponistpian2172 Objective purpose? Who's objective purpose? I find that hard to believe. Purpose implies intent. Intent is subjective to the person holding the intent. Can you give an example of objective purpose?
@@gabrielteo3636 I don't believe in objective purpose in the strict sense, but I mean a purpose that is as objective as morality is, that basically emerges from all our intents. For example we all want to survive and many want their children etc. to survive. So we basically have the purpose to preserve the ecosystem we depend on. That's not exactly objective, but I primarily wanted to point out that you used a false dichotomy.
@@antoniusnies-komponistpian2172 I don't believe in objective morality. I'm an emotivist. As for "purpose"...I think that is just a model in our heads to help us survive based on wants which to me is subjective. What is the purpose of the sun or galaxy or universe? To allow you and I to live? The only purpose I see is the ones we give things.
This wonderful conversation seemed to end somewhere in the middle; we want to see and hear all of it. Any chance?
it's linked in the description
@@SmolJordan Thanks!
I think the idea of creating meaning is often used interchangeably with pursuing things one already finds meaningful in light of there being no common script for us all to follow. Although the difference is small this is where the circular reasoning can maybe be subverted in a sense because I don't think you can choose what you find meaningful (or at least the degree of freedom you'd have is limited) but that doesn't negate the sensation of meaning. The sense of meaning may be subjective but it is still prior to the action being taken.
It seems to me we value life and truth, does anyone not value these things?
4:23 "When you walk into St Chapelle ....."
From an unbeliever, i urge anyone with the opportunity to do so.
Subjectivity not atractive? 🤣
Someone haven't heard of Roleplay, Cosplay or Sex in general.
Sweet Man 🤗
The idea of "objective value" is an oxymoron. All value is subjective, we just incorporate many values from our culture and teachings, but that does mean they're entirely objective. He seems like he is educated is all sorts of things that really are saying things but saying nothing at all. The kind of person who believes we cannot create our own values that can fill our lives with meaning such as art, literature, music, building or inventing things.. this type of person must not have any imagination at all to call subjective values vacuous or empty. I find reading and writing for example far more empowering and meaningful than just believing some false narratives of god and whatever version of morality this man ascribes too. I think he has never read any Nietzsche in his life and it shows.
So you subjectively align yourself with the value you subjectively consider to be objective and subjectively consider to be most important, and this somehow fixes the problem of subjective purpose?
Lol, wut?
That's just a whole lot of word salad that basically comes down to "my subjective purpose is better than your subjective purpose, and if something I dislike makes you happy, stop it, and do what I like instead".
The argument is so abstract and detached from the real world, that it sounds impressive and agreeable, but there's just nothing of substance there once you dig beneath the surface and try to relate it to the real world.
And there Alex is, just nodding along. Where's the skepticism gone? Why do I get the feeling we're going to see a second "Why I'm a Christian now" podcast, but at a different time of year this time around?
Im sure he could grind him down if he wanted, but that whuld be the last interview he whuld have with Barron, as well as other potential theist guests.
At some point even Alex has to think about the future of his podcast.
@@Solutionsarejustcompromises After this exchange in the podcast, he does a better job of presenting what non-theists would say.
Consider how he responds at 20:59 in the full video, where he defends the evolutionary support for human actions.
But here he pretty much just lets Barron speak for 8 minutes, and the only substantial responses he gives are rather devoid of opposition:
- At 2:26, he agrees that "inventing" meaning is "vacuous", and implicitly accepts that theists deciding to do what they think God wants them to do is objective meaning (even though "deciding" and "they think" are both subjective phrases).
- At 6:26, he goes one step further than just letting Barron talk, and presents his own argument for what essentially seems to be the theistic view, where there is some "non-derivative reason to act", as he puts it.
The obvious and common response is that a God-dictated purpose is hardly a purpose at all, and deciding on one's purpose allows one to do what actually makes you happy.
We wouldn't accept a purpose dictated by our parents, or by the ruler of a country, for example, and we would in fact find such dictations to be quite objectionable, yet theists paint God doing the same thing as a good thing.
Never mind that even with religion, most people still decide what they want to do with their lives (there are only so many missionaries and preachers who dedicate a significant amount of their time to a purpose that could realistically be said to come from their imagining of God).
I wouldn't expect a response like my original comment, but I would expect at least some sort of rebuttal (and I certainly wouldn't expect agreement) from someone whose made a career out of frequently publicly debating against theistic claims.
The most reasonable conclusion I can come up with is that Alex is indeed struggling with purpose (possibly since recently, given the crack in his vegan activism), and he indeed sees religion as being able to give him purpose.
@@blueredingreen not sure how you connected purpose to veganism.
Also, Alex explained that had more to with practicality and his personal situation, and that he still suports it fully.
I highly highly doubt he is anywhere near close to looking at theism for purpose, as he mentions its a cope.
@@Solutionsarejustcompromises Not just veganism, but vegan activism. Activism gives a sense of purpose: you're trying to accomplish some significant goal. And a crack in his veganism (for whatever reason) would also upend that purpose.
In the short where he mentions belief in God being a "cope", I find it curious that he focused on the "non-resistant -> engage with literature -> act as if it's true -> believe it's true" path, which seems rare, whereas the more common path, I suspect, is for someone to become increasingly desperate to find God, and then either manifest some experience through desperation, or attributing mundane events to God due to bias. There is a rather nice gap he could fit into, where he could say he remained an outsider, and then actually became convinced, and this would be consistent with what he said (because he didn't "act as if it's true").
But don't get me wrong, I know far too little about what's going on in Alex's head to say anything with much confidence one way or the other. I'm merely noting some curiosities and entertaining some possibilities.
Cross posting?
What is debilitating is having a belief that will cause you to avoid simple quesitons.
I use "creating your own purpose" and "discovering what is to you a meaningful life, according to what you value, and then living that life" interchangeably. I suppose it's more a discovery than creation since you can't choose your values freely, you already have them. If "creating your own purpose" means vacuously coming up with an arbitrary goal, then it's simple nonsense. What you're creating isn't purpose.
jordan peterson is not smart
Creating your own purpose/values/meaning, basically implies that you start with no values in the first place, and that's obviously not true. We as humans have value systems ingrained in us through evolution, and while it can be altered, and even guided, we all start from this state, barring those who are corrupted from the start by genetic defects and the like.
This is ultimately why we all end up valuing the same things. We all value those who generally are kind and don't harm others, for example. Often times, when people say they have different values from the norm, they are in a state of denial, and ultimately lead themselves down a self destructive path to varying levels of severity.
The general values found in religion are generally constructive, because they're built out of experience individuals have had with what brings them value, and since people are generally the same, the advice is applicable to most people.
Some people have taken this approximate universality to be objectivity, but that is a totally irrational. Objective value is a nonsense term. Value describes a preference, either as part of a standard, or of a person. Without the subject, value is meaningless. Even if there is a God, that only introduces a new subject; not objectivity.
That said, I would agree we discover, rather than choose, what it is we value, but we do create meaning in our lives through our actions.
I often find that the refining of ethics or other values in the beginning can seem in contrast to the norm and still be way better.
The norm can be a big pile of mindless people on autopilot.
"Often times, when people say they have different values from the norm, they are in a state of denial, and..." - I very much agree with everything else you wrote, but you lost me here. If, for example, someone doesn't seem to feel empathy for others, I wouldn't say they're "in denial", as much as they've been "educated" into this, they haven't had much positive exposure to those people to develop empathy, they don't have a good moral framework, they poorly evaluate their decisions and/or they lack empathy on a biological level. These reasons make it easy to explain why people-as-property and the stuff in Germany were so accepted in those societies, whereas it's harder to explain why most people across many countries would all have been in denial.
As for purpose, this varies greatly from individual to individual. Some find purpose in religion, some don't. Some find purpose in having children, some don't. Some find purpose in their career, some don't. Some find purpose in art, some don't. Some find purpose in charity, some don't. Some find purpose in pleasure, some don't. The idea that everyone ultimately wants the same things out of life can be quite damaging to anyone who doesn't want those things (this is also at least partially the reason why people oppose opposing fetuses, because "motherhood is the most fulfilling experience a woman can have").
@@blueredingreen I will respond to you, but you will not agree by the end of it, because you both lack experience and are in denial. One of the most common things I hear from people is that they don't care what people think. Some people will go so far as to deliberately make themselves appear as someone likely to get disapproval from others as a way of proving how much they don't care, and this is often a result of low self-esteem making them feel as though they will never be good enough to earn that approval, so they find comfort in deliberately ensuring they will never live up to that approval as it mean they never need to worry about it. Ironically, these are the people who care more than anyone about the approval of others, and find the most satisfaction in it. These things are apparent, not in what they say, but in what they do. At the end of the day, one of the most certain things we can say about almost everyone is that they care about the approval of others.
That said, I specifically said "often times" for a reason. You can't simply assume that every individual is identical to what you'd expect based on every group trend. There are exceptions, and you also have to recognize that it's people's actions that betray them. Someone who has no empathy for others shows it very clearly through their actions when you get to know them. That's why there is a such thing as recognizable sociopathic behavior. There are also some things which we know cause people to deviate from the norm on, and others which we have no reason to believe so. Those who cease to care about the approval of others only do so through intense self-discipline, and even then, they only suppress that desire; not eliminate it. Humans are all fundamentally the same. The things we value are the same. The ways we think are the same. The biases and mistakes we make are the same. The flaws in our brains are the same. There are exceptions, but deviations from the norm are rare and small.
You misunderstand purpose. Religion doesn't give purpose. The sense of belonging, contribution, and a greater goal gives purpose. You can find that in religion, but you can also find that in many other places, but regardless of where you find it, what gives us a sense of purpose is the same for all of us. Not everyone can find purpose in things, often times because they lack the discipline to put in the necessary work, but anyone could find purpose in religion. Many atheists have turned to revolutionary socialism as a way of finding that meaning, because it's cult-like insularity, and the resulting strong sense of belonging and shared ambition is an immensely powerful source of meaning. For those within these kinds of movements, it operates exactly like a religion, except without the mystical baggage the word religion carries with it.
I will say, no one finds purpose in pleasure. Those hedonists who think they do are deluding themselves. Self indulgence is one of the single most reliable ways to create a hollow existence. It's this self indulgence and decadence that's responsible for the massive crisis of meaning we have in our modern privileged society. Life is so easy that it's effortless to indulge in mindless pleasure, and without strong discipline, it's very difficult to resist, but failing to do so leads to people feeling aimless, and that's exactly why aimlessness has become an epidemic. In the past, when life was a constant struggle, people had no problem finding meaning, because the struggle itself, both for the self and the family was inherently meaningful, but now that this struggle is effortless, it carries no weight.
Meaning is easy to find, but inherently requires you to suffer. To find meaning, you need to do one or both of the following: fulfill responsibilities, and make progress towards a goal you deeply value. However, the currency of meaning is suffering. Without it, nothing holds any weight. A responsibility feels much more meaningful when it requires sacrifice. That's why sacrificing your life is one of the single most meaningful things a person can do, which is why so many people are drawn to do so, and why we venerate those that do so intensely. A goal that's easy to achieve isn't meaningful, but a goal that is monstrously difficult, regardless of what it is, holds meaning if for nothing more than the sense of accomplishment from achieving it, even if only in small part.
Achieving what one wishes, suffering for it and living according to one's values. All of these things bring tremendous pleasure. Is that pleasure itself not the purpose of one's actions?
@@lambdanebula8473 "you both lack experience and are in denial" - seems like you're dismissing opposing views and arguments right out of the gate, with an ad hominem, which is not exactly a sign of skepticism or rationality, and isn't conducive to constructive discourse.
You start off with some things I agree with, but also, rather than really presenting much in the form of arguments, you mostly just make a lot of assertions that seem to have no justification, and in fact seem to directly be contradicted by the existence of people seemingly happily living life with a wide variety of values and purposes. Asserting that such people are in denial or deluded seems less like a justified conclusion and more like an attempt to squeeze reality into your existing worldview of everyone having similar values and purposes.
What is especially telling is that you specifically say "often times", you acknowledge that there are exceptions, and yet in the same paragraph you say "Humans are all fundamentally the same". If it's "all", then it cannot have exceptions: that's what "all" means. Most of the rest of your comment is actively undermined, rebutted and contradicted by you saying there are exceptions. Acknowledging that there are exceptions undermines your assertions that some people can't find purpose in certain things or in certain ways. Those people could just be the exceptions you already acknowledge the existence of.
Also, if you accept that some people are different, you'd now need to justify these differences being rare and small (i.e. you need to justify them being "exceptions"). The problem seems to be that you're dismissing those who appear to be different, and then using the "fact" that you don't know of many people who are different as a justification for saying that those people are in fact not different. It's an even less rational form of circular reasoning.
I'm disappointed. This conversation is completely vacuous. The terms being used are so open to equivocation, and the positions taken are so utterly without justification, mere assertions that they are, that the entire affair is doomed to go nowhere.
Allow me to retort: I dedicated my life to a career in medicine, medical research, and teaching. That was my purpose. I chose it. And I chose it freely. You can say that I made this decision in accordance with the universal human values of care, charity, solidarity, justice, curiosity, and the desire for excellence, but that would just be to say that I am human. You could say that the values of medical practice were pre-existing, and I did not invent them, but that is true for all pursuits--all ways of life embody values, values that are no more black-and-white and no more demonstrably universal or categorical than the values of medicine or science, which are always subject to re-eVALUation.
Was my chosen path, and the unique way I followed it (oh, it was unique!) vapid? Unattractively subjective? Wrongheaded? Because it didn't involve adopting a traditional cosmology, preferably an Abrahamic one? Did I have no agency in all this? Did I not make these choices? Did I not FORGE this life and this purpose in life, through my own decisions and commitments and years of grueling, ass-shredding work? Did I not forge that career for myself, and did I not bring to all the tragedy and horror and wonder that I saw and experienced my OWN narrative that made sense TO ME and helped me go on, for myself and others?
Please. Get real.
Two more things of which I must take note.
1. Notice the (implicitly dismissive) mention of Nietzsche, Sartre, and Foucault, without any actual engagement with these admittedly problematic but transformative and powerful thinkers. No. You don't get to just wave those guys away.
2. I cannot escape the terrible impression that the good Bishop is proselytizing from behind the thinly veiled pretense of existential philosophizing or social critique. This entire conversation really amounts to a mere assertion: an announcement, almost by fiat, that meaning cannot, or at least SHOULD not, be FORGED by a freely willed, active, bodily, human agency, that purpose cannot be both discovered AND developed in a very human act of creation, that one's life cannot be a unique and beautiful and declarative work of art.
I dissent.
Trying To Live By Bread Alone Is Indeed A Hopeless, Empty, Foolish Endeavor.
Awww Jo Ann. Are you on a bread diet honey? Sorry you’re resultantly feeling so despondent about your life.😏
The preist wants you to be a sheep 😂
there is either purpose that who make fo yourself, purpose inflicted on you by others, or no purpose at all
If you need help, its not self help. If you help yourself, you did not need help.
“Discover” your purpose? There is a purpose waiting for you to discover it? How is it yours, then?
Good Say brethren
Bishop Robert Barron 🔥🔥🔥